So...how about them leaked 40k 6th Ed rules?

The place to discuss relevant News and Rumors!

Postby Arander » Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:54 am

If 6th drops this year (which almost everyone is certain of) it'll be in the summer i'm sure. Look at the past couple of edition changes. Summer is when they always release the new rules, whether it be for Fantasy or 40k. So this year's Adepticon will be saved from the craziness of these new rules.
Arander
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:27 am

Postby swampthing » Sun Jan 15, 2012 9:44 am

wouldnt it be nice if they released 6th ed. in an ebook format apart from the print version.....or would that be too modern?
swampthing
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:34 am
Location: Palatine/Aurora/Palatine etc.etc.

Postby Brian » Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:46 pm

swampthing wrote:wouldnt it be nice if they released 6th ed. in an ebook format apart from the print version.....or would that be too modern?


I was just talking about this with a friend the other day. If they released it in .mobi (kindle) or .epub (nook) or just plain .pdf format there would be mass piracy. Due to the small file sizes of those formats they could be traded via email easily (no need for torrents or any of that silliness.) We concluded that electronic ruleset releases would have to be handled by an app. You download the "GW" app and then you use a password to log in to the app and you can access all of the electronic rulebooks and codex books you have paid for.
User avatar
Brian
 
Posts: 499
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: Chicago (Logan Square)

Postby YeezyMozart » Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:18 pm

After re-reading all the rules for a second time around.

I have several question but I have one that even a friend of mine called me about.

How will tournaments have players decide first turn in 6th edition?

Most of the Stratagems impact the competitive nature of the game drastically and then many of them require you to have the actual piece of terrain.

No TO will be able to provide all the different types of terrain possible and I certainly would not want to have to travel with a bunch of terrain pieces now.

Whats your take?
YeezyMozart
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2009 8:42 am

Postby muwhe » Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:34 pm

My take is .. having been through Rogue Trader, 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 5.0 on just the 40k side over the years.

I'll worry about it when we have something offical. I don't care to repeat having elements of 3.5 trial assault rules stuck in my head, and learning 4.0 with all the slight changes.

If any aspect of this pdf is "real" and I think that is a pretty big if for a number of reasons. Absorbing it now, will make unlearning what is changed a pain come the real thing.

Regardless, 6th is well after AdeptiCon this year. So for me it is next years problem. :D
muwhe
AdeptiCon Oracle
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:15 pm

Postby 00Enron » Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:34 pm

My 2 cents.

Hypthetically if these were the rules verbatim and there were no major changes i would be of the opinon that TOs would have to make one of three possible choices.

1. Allow a core set of "Tournament Only" strategems. This keeps strategems in the game but disallows any that might change the set up of the table and keep the players on a more "even" setting.

2. Do away with strategems all togather for competitive play. To go first is still a roll off with deployment is largely what it is now. This would allow for players to utilize 6th ed rules with a more familiar set up to the game.

3. Allow players access to strategms with no restriction. Players must provide their own terrain and objectives. Any player found to be in violation of these rules will not be allowed to utilize the strategm (This could become a nightmare for TOs).

Just my opinon what do the rest of you think?
Adepticon 2008-Best Appearance
G.R.A.M.P.A member
00Enron
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 2:37 am

Postby Brian » Tue Jan 17, 2012 1:46 pm

00Enron wrote:My 2 cents.

Hypthetically if these were the rules verbatim and there were no major changes i would be of the opinon that TOs would have to make one of three possible choices.

1. Allow a core set of "Tournament Only" strategems. This keeps strategems in the game but disallows any that might change the set up of the table and keep the players on a more "even" setting.

2. Do away with strategems all togather for competitive play. To go first is still a roll off with deployment is largely what it is now. This would allow for players to utilize 6th ed rules with a more familiar set up to the game.

3. Allow players access to strategms with no restriction. Players must provide their own terrain and objectives. Any player found to be in violation of these rules will not be allowed to utilize the strategm (This could become a nightmare for TOs).

Just my opinon what do the rest of you think?



Tournament organizers would be free to either scrap strategems altogether or make mission-specific ones (since tournaments often use non-standard missions.) I think that's one of the more interesting aspects of the strategem system with regard to the tournament circuit.
User avatar
Brian
 
Posts: 499
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: Chicago (Logan Square)

Postby Redbeard » Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:02 pm

Looking at the other rules, it quickly becomes apparent that going 1st is an outright advantage in the 6th rules, rather than a situational advantage, as it is in 5th.

In 5th, 2/3rds of missions are objective based, and objectives are only checked at the end of the game. Going second allows one to deploy after one's opponent, as well as having the last move in this system.


In 6th, as presented, objectives are scored every game-cycle, dramatically reducing the impact of having last turn. Also, as you check at the beginning of your turn to see if you have an objective, going first allows you to start earning objective points sooner.

What's more, going first does not guarantee deploying first in 6th ed. So, the risk exists that I can deploy after you, and then take the first turn as well, with my models placed to optimize that situation.

As such, I think that the 'Tactical Gambit' is going to be one of the most interesting aspects of 6th ed. Learning what you can afford to give up to go 1st, or what you stand to gain by going second will be a skill worth mastering. To lose this rule, or to water it down at tournaments, would be a huge mistake, in my opinion.
"All very successful commanders are prima donnas and must be so treated."

George S. Patton
User avatar
Redbeard
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:55 am
Location: Homewood, IL

Postby 00Enron » Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:47 pm

Hey all i was trolling BOLs site and came accoss this:


Joseph Magee

4 comments collapsed Collapse Expand Here is that apology note. (Yes I am JoeyFox - and yes it is from /tg/ - so some salt for your bucket.)

""I'm sorry everyone. I found out about this "6th leak" yesterday while at my FLGS painting, looked at it with astonishment...

The
6th book was written by me and some friends for our FLGS. We wanted to
break off and play 40k our way by combining various rule sets and just
making life easier on our games. It was once a pile of notes just
laying around until one of our players decided to make it "real" - he
already apparently made an attempt with an earlier document (as some
have noticed.) This time he just took it to far, and my store's group
wants to apologize on his behalf.

Feel free to use the rules, we
enjoy them very much and they do fix 40k for our personal needs. Yes
they are well written - it is far easier to use and explain to new
players when it is a formatted document and not piles of hand written
text. We simply modified the 5th rules.

You need not believe me
if you want to get your hopes up. I simply wish to apologize to those
who will for our 'friend' who simply took a job of formatting friendly
rules into "real GW rules.""


Here is the link:
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/01/ ... leset.html

Its 3/4 way down on the comments.

Take it for what it is. I am very confused now. :cry:
Adepticon 2008-Best Appearance
G.R.A.M.P.A member
00Enron
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 2:37 am

Postby Generalissimo_Fred » Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:01 pm

I can totally see that happening. At Games Plus we have a fantasy rule set call Bones of Contention which written by the store owner and played for almost 20 years. It has gone through many revisions and is currently over 100 pages long. It was based around a long ago Warhammer rules set and it has been changed a lot since then to incorporate, well everything. It is a great game to play.

I can see someone making a 40k version of that. If the Bones rules were leaked it would appear to some to be a highly advanced and intricate Warhammer fantasy edition.
Generalissimo_Fred
 
Posts: 1248
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:31 am
Location: Elgin, IL

Postby Redbeard » Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:05 pm

Which explains why such a document, written in May 2011, has references to units and weapons that were not released until November 2011...

Right.


Although, it's an interesting thing to try. Rules leak. GW says, 'nope, not ours, must be a hoax.'. So, okay, I'll claim them. Now, what does GW next? You have to think that at least some of those rules are things that are actually going to go into 6th ed. And now they've publicly disavowed them, and someone else has said they wrote them.
"All very successful commanders are prima donnas and must be so treated."

George S. Patton
User avatar
Redbeard
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:55 am
Location: Homewood, IL

Postby YeezyMozart » Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:06 pm

I am gonna go out on a limb and call Joseph Magee a practical joker.

Everyone is looking for a plea of guilt that the rules are fake.

Here are some obvious questions if his story is true:

Why did they start on Page 22 rather than page 1?
Why did they make comments about veteran gamers?
Why if you are creating it for your local FLGS leave placeholders and make reference to stuff that we didnt even know was coming out in May?
Why back date the document so that it seems like you began writing it years ago? Before Necrons and Gray Knights.

The notion that this was just someone taking the house rules too far is preposterous and I highly doubt that this group had anything to do with the leaked rules set.


I call shenanigans good sir..... shenanigans!!!!!
YeezyMozart
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2009 8:42 am

Postby Elthniar » Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:26 pm

B-Rad wrote:I call shenanigans good sir..... shenanigans!!!!!


I'm gonna pistol-whip the next person who says shenanigans.

Personally, I am going to stick with my policy of not believing anything until I have it in hard copy in front of me.

Is the document legit? Probably, but why even speculate? Just have a little bit of patience, enjoy 5th edition while it is still around, and then when 6th comes everyone will know for sure what the rules are. Until then, everything is just rumors.
Elthniar
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 3:59 pm
Location: Mt. Prospect, IL

Postby Brian » Tue Jan 17, 2012 7:57 pm

00Enron wrote:Hey all i was trolling BOLs site and came accoss this:


Joseph Magee

4 comments collapsed Collapse Expand Here is that apology note. (Yes I am JoeyFox - and yes it is from /tg/ - so some salt for your bucket.)

""I'm sorry everyone. I found out about this "6th leak" yesterday while at my FLGS painting, looked at it with astonishment...

The
6th book was written by me and some friends for our FLGS. We wanted to
break off and play 40k our way by combining various rule sets and just
making life easier on our games. It was once a pile of notes just
laying around until one of our players decided to make it "real" - he
already apparently made an attempt with an earlier document (as some
have noticed.) This time he just took it to far, and my store's group
wants to apologize on his behalf.

Feel free to use the rules, we
enjoy them very much and they do fix 40k for our personal needs. Yes
they are well written - it is far easier to use and explain to new
players when it is a formatted document and not piles of hand written
text. We simply modified the 5th rules.

You need not believe me
if you want to get your hopes up. I simply wish to apologize to those
who will for our 'friend' who simply took a job of formatting friendly
rules into "real GW rules.""


Here is the link:
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/01/ ... leset.html

Its 3/4 way down on the comments.

Take it for what it is. I am very confused now. :cry:



That post was found on the gaming forum of 4chan. The bottom of the internet 4chan. The "all posters are anonymous" 4chan.

4chan.
User avatar
Brian
 
Posts: 499
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: Chicago (Logan Square)

Postby Lord Krungharr » Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:54 pm

I like the word shenanigans. But I ponder the notion that perhaps this was a permitted leak through a 3rd party to see how gamers would respond to such rules. GW operatives could be tracking my typing right now!
User avatar
Lord Krungharr
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 7:59 pm
Location: Lehigh Acres, FL

PreviousNext

Return to News & Rumors

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest