Wednesday, January 11, 2012

6th edition leak! This may be amazing!!

by Spaguatyrine


Yes I stole this from bloodofkittens , but reading this sounds very interesting.  Blood of Kittens often has been very close to correct on their rumors in the past. 

This read stopped me in my tracks to think if this is 75% true it matches the rumors that are coming out and makes a lot of sense in my opinion game wise.  Take a gander and see what you think!

A lot of armies just got better if this is true!! 
Guard!!!

35 comments:

  1. i'm afraid i agree with 3++ on this, this 'leak' is just some fan-boy scammer making stuff up.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have my doubts about the authenticity. The evasion stuff rings as a little too complicated. One of the stealth levels has the user roll 2d6X1.5. I don't see GW ever making their players do fractional math in their heads.

    Even if it is authentic, the rules seem far to raw. The actual rules could end up having some significant differences.

    I wouldn't build any armies based on these rumors just yet.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Actually Darr, the stealth rules for the Deathleaper are already 2d6x1.5 (it says to roll for night fighting then halve the result, but it's the same thing.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm leaning on the scam side too. The fact the leaked rulebook matches the rumors we've seen also suggests someone compiled the rumors into a 'leaked' rulebook. It just seems way too convenient for me.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @TheNeverThere

    For the Deathleaper it's broken down into two steps for you. You get a value and halve it. While 2d6x1.5 is equivalent mathematically, I don't think they would ever write the rule that way. This partly why I think the rules seem very raw.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'd bet 2d6X1.5 is a simplification of how the rule really reads. if this stuff's true.

    I'm inclined to think it's a wish list. 1mo out, we'll see a 75% true rumor.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm reading through the PDF right now.

    Currently I'm leaning towards believing it's authentic, but an early unpolished test version of the new rules. It's too detailed and consistent to be some bit of fan-wank. And of course Tasty has an excellent track record.

    I wouldn't build an army based on this PDF yet, but it is encouraging. As expected, it's convoluted in some places (Instant Death's redefinition is particularly lawyer-like), but overall there's less randomness (almost none at all to movement) and several serious increases to speed-of-play. It also addresses the vehicle damage problems (sloppily) and wound allocation shenanigans (quite nicely) that have caused so many problems in 5th.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Just because a hoax takes a lot of work does not invalidate the possibility of a hoax. James Randi once fooled the entire country of Australia just to prove a point

    ReplyDelete
  9. There's too much retread/copy-paste of precise wording from prior rulebook(s), and the organization/placement of various rules and such are all wrong ... they've never put shooting (for instance) ahead of movement / turn phases / etc. It's just a bit whackadoodle.

    Keep in mind that there've been super-detailed, super-comprehensive "fakes" before ... and I'm not suggesting this is a raging fake so much as not something to put any stock in.

    It's also rife with ... well, very bad rules and hang-ups that will slug down the game, which puts stock in - at most - it being an extremely early playtest version (and the lack of any amendment to Necron/SoB/etc.). Remember it's unlikely that massive #'s of new special rules would be absent from "made-for-6th" armies like Necron without ALSO giving them accompanying codex updates (which aren't delivered for these fellas).

    It's a fun laugher to read through, but I think the overreaction on the net right now to this document is more a reflection of nervous feelings (in good or bad ways depending on the individual) regarding the release of a new edition.

    ReplyDelete
  10. PS - Tasty does indeed NAIL some of the rumors; he's also totally boned them up a few times too; this was broken elsewhere than BoK originally, regardless, and is one of those giant TBD's for now.

    ReplyDelete
  11. holy shnikies batman...if this was real i would be a very happy tyranid player AND necron player. my source just got back to me on it, and as others have said this was a wish list and early draft....furthermore, some of this is 100% fabrication.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The pdf looks too real in my opinion. As when listening to most people you can only believe 50 percent of what you hear or read anyways. Regardless of if this is a test copy, it shows a 'direction' or hobby is going, and I like what I see. I of course won't buy anything or not buy anything based on these rumors, but my mind is already contemplating scenarios.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I down loaded it and read it. Eh... If it is real, I'll find out when it comes out. Until then, I'm still playing 5th edition. Fixating in future possibilities does nothing for my gaming in the present.

    @ Atreides; 3++ has no grounds to call out if something is fake or not after their ass mockery post on tau rumors.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I was listening to an old podcast where they're talking about the 6th ed rumours. A lot of what they talked about is in here which at least shows it's well researched if nothing else.

    I do like the changes. If 6th ed doesn't implement them I might steal some as house rules.

    F.e. I like the vehicle damage change to make stunned bump up to weapon destroyed.
    Snipers are a lot better.
    The change to guard's "incomming!" rule is WAY better.
    After getting them blown to bits on their first outing, I like the -1 penalty for shooting at the DE paper planes.
    Patch up is really good for multiwound models. And so on.

    ReplyDelete
  15. After reading through more of it, I'm going to go ahead and say I think it's real, and there's one big reason why: Flayed Ones.

    Flayed Ones are awful. They can Infiltrate, and they can Deep Strike, and nobody can figure out why you'd ever want to Deep Strike them. And then Imotekh--the most expensive HQ in the Necron book--came with an inexplicable special rule that would allow an enemy unit to act as a Locator Beacon for Flayed Ones. This did not help, as you'd still never want to Deep Strike them, ever. They were a bad unit given a useless deployment method which was then modified by a useless special rule on a pricey character.

    And then, in the 6th Leak, all three of these things (Infiltrate, Deep Strike, and Imotekh's Beacon) have synergy with each other, and in a manner that is so clear it had to be intentional. Infiltrate is now a Deep Strike, but can ONLY make use of Beacons if the unit ALSO has the Deep Strike rule. You can charge (Engage) following a non-critical Deep Strike, and Beacons ignore critical range.

    That's three different special rules, which were unknown to the public at the time, harmonizing to make a completely worthless unit suddenly become able to perform near-guaranteed Turn 1 charges when synergized with an expensive HQ.

    You can look at the file and see it's from May 2011. If someone was sitting down in May to write a hoax-Rulebook, they'd have had no idea about any of these things.

    If it's fake, that's about the luckiest guess in the history of the world.

    ReplyDelete
  16. It also explains why Necron Destroyers (a shooty unit) got preferred enemy. Because it will one day affect shooting. And why Dark Eldar skimmers are just a bit too fragile. Because they're going to be harder to hit in 6th.

    It may not be the current version of 6th Edition, but I do believe that it was a real test version at one time. As I read through the rules, there's nothing that stands out to me as overpowered. It all fits together too nicely to be the work of one designer. It's obviously the work of more than one designer who are getting feedback from testers.

    ReplyDelete
  17. If this is really from May 2011 then it also includes the statlines for Tesla weapons, adding even more validity to it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Wow, the vehicle damage rules, if accurate, make Gauss torrenting a real vehicle killer. There's a lot of crazy stuff in there, though. (evasion? WTF?) I doubt it'll come through as presented, but crazier things have happened.

    Wait, no they haven't.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Peeps are whispering about Eldar transports being unkillable again....

    ReplyDelete
  20. I'm inclined to think it is an early draft - I would be floored if this was an intentional GW leak just to see what kind of reaction it gets.

    As a Tyranid player - almost excited. Some potential improvements here and there. Same no assault grenades though. =\ I didn't see anything particularly wishlisty in the tyranid book update. Harpy getting supersonic was pretty funny though.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Not having Assault Grenades is at least partially softened in that ruleset. The switch from the attacking unit becoming I1 to the defending unit becoming I10 means you'd get to attack before Power Fists/Thunder Hammers, as well as having a chance (however small) to either Shake or Stun a unit and negate the penalty altogether. But even the Power Fist thing is nice.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Very glad I don't play often anymore so I don't have to deal with this sorta BS... and GW in general.

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Dodger

    I'd be more impressed with the "It makes Flayed Ones work!" argument if this version of the rules was leaked before the Necron codex came out. It's not like GW has never released a bad unit before. Of course, you could be right that six edition will make them better, but that doesn't mean that, since these rule make them better, they must be the real 6th edition rules.

    At this point I don't see GW adding another stat to the model profile, or messing with the move-shoot-assault format of the game. It's too radical of a change. So radical, that I would expect GW marketing to already be working on softening us up for it. And no, I don't think leaking these rules is some type of viral marketing attempt at that. It's too clever, and is too likely to backfire. You want people to at least buy the new rules before they quit the game in disgust if you screwed up too royally. I'd expect more "BIG CHANGES COMING!" "IN THE GRIM DARK FUTURE THERE IS ONLY AWSOME!" style of a marketing push.

    We can argue this back and forth. We won't know for sure for months. I'm a skeptical person, so I don't believe anything in absence of evidence. Id need to find Jervis's prints on a copy of these rules before I'd definitively believe they where authentic.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @ Da Warboss, they're already unkillable!

    At least now if they turboboost into your face it's easy to hit them and their cover save is only a 5+

    ReplyDelete
  25. Its interesting to see that the a WTF unit for the necrons also gets made understandable in this leak as the same thing is going on the more I read through it in regards to the tyranid codex. If certain things in this set of rumors come to pass then even pyrovores may be somewhat viable (Yes, I said it)

    ReplyDelete
  26. Nice! See we are all getting excited! I think I can still wound allocate 4 different armor tyoes with 3 thunderwolves and my Lord though!!!!! :). Hahahahahahaha!!!!!

    LOL

    ReplyDelete
  27. Actually, 3 Thunderwolf Cav with Storm Shields could suck up 6 low-AP wounds before you would have to allocate to other models. But... you wouldn't be able to put one wound apiece on them anymore, as you would be forced to remove whole models first.

    ReplyDelete
  28. There's also a "patch up" phase in CC where you have to remove wounded models and trade out their spare wounds to create unwounded models until you're down to one wounded model (ICs are ignored).

    E.g: A unit of 10 paladins all with 1 wound would become a unit of 5 full health paladins.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I disagree! 1 lord with a 2+, 1 Tw with storm shield, 1 tw with a power weapon, and 1 tw with a storm shield. They all have different armor groups. Right?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Armor Group 1: Wolf Lord
    Armor Group 2: Two TW's with Storm Shields
    Armor Group 3: TW with Power Weapon

    If I understand it correctly, the armor groups are determined by your combination of saves. So the two 3+/3++ Thunderwolves with Storm Shields would be grouped together.

    The flip side is that you could assign 4 wounds to them to make saves on before you'd have to give any to the Lord or the Power Sword TW. Which I'm thinking is a whole other species of broken.

    ReplyDelete
  31. This is what I am thinking,

    1 tw with power weapon. 3+/5++
    1 tw with storm shield 3+/3++
    1 tw normal 3+
    1 Lord. 2+/3++

    Right?

    I can't get on the blog except by my phone. What's up?

    ReplyDelete
  32. That might work.

    No problems here getting on the blog.

    ReplyDelete
  33. @ Spag

    That works for assigning wounds, but the Patch Up thing is still a mandatory "only one model can be wounded" phase.

    While you don't initially have to remove whole models, you do later in your phase.

    Basically it's a mechanic that says "hey guys... we never meant for you to screw with wound allocation to make shooting worthless... so now you can't".

    ReplyDelete
  34. @Spag - that would only work in CC, Power Weapon doesn't give a save versus Shooting.

    And as Foodie said, Patch Up would kill half of your wounded models at the end of the turn every turn anyway.

    ReplyDelete

Recent Favorites

All-Time Favorites