6th Edition 40K Rules Leak

[HsojVvad]

Forgot about this one. Even if Game Workshop does deny that this is their work, did we all forget about Space Hulk? I clearly remember reading forums where it was said the GW denied that the mystery box was SH.

[oneking]

played this "leak" today and gotta say, I like it alot, much preferable to 5th ed. and if this thing is a total fake and 6th is nothing like it, well I will still play this leak, maybe call it leakhammer 40.5k or something. its alot of fun

[DarkLink]

BoK also said that Necrons would get an SC to allow Flayed Ones to become a Troops choice among other false rumors.

Funny how he doesn't really explain how it's a fake.

I've actually met Tastytaste, and he does have reliable sources. He doesn't know everything (no one outside of the actual codex writers do), and sometimes his info is a little outdated, but I can verify that he genuinely sees some stuff before it gets released. He doesn't always have first hand knowlege, but just because he isn't 100% accurate doesn't mean that he isn't a pretty good source. He certainly knows more than any of us do.

I want to believe ...

Same here. The rules are a little rough, but with a little bit of polish these rules not only fix virtually every balance problem with both the weaker current codices ('nidz) but also making most of the older codices much more viable (tau, eldar), while nerfing some of the OP stuff that no one really likes such as MSU vehicle spam. And it makes the game much more streamlined and quicker to play, while simultaneously opening up more tactical options. All without requiring new codex updates.

[eldargal]

No rumourmonger is 100% accurate, getting a few things wrong is no indication that their sources are all bad. To illustrate I asked the two sources I have within GW about it and one said it was fake and the other said he thought it was real. Both of these have been right and wrong about things.

[HsojVvad]

Yes this is fake just like Space Hulk is not the Surprise Box. Can't believe anything what GW says.

[DarkLink]

Right, GW may just be covering their bases. They can just say "I don't know what you're talking about" and whistle innocently, whether or not this is actually a legit leak.

[Maine]

I can say that this seems to be a ruleset that not only would I play, I'd pick up another army. It could definitely use some simplification (change Evasion to a BS mod with a couple rules to handle edge cases), but otherwise it looks really good.

If 6th edition isn't nearly as interesting as this ruleset seems to be, I will probably sell most of my armies (Guards, Nids, Necrons, SM-Salamanders), keeping only a handful of models. I haven't been motivated to bring model to table in nearly a year, and my club has mostly switched to Warmahordes (which I dislike) anyway.

[Guidebot]

Come on everyone. GW would never confirm if this was their 6th ed rules.

Like they'd ever send out an email to all their people saying, "yeap, guys, about this alleged leak, well yes, that's our 6th ed, the leak is real, so now you know".

See it from their point of view. The only email they'd ever send out is the one they did. It means nothing regarding the veracity of the 'leaked' document.

I'm not saying the document is or is not genuine (because actually, I don't know). All I'm saying is that this email from gw means nothing.

[Wolfshade]

I quite like this, though I agree with people regarding the wording of it. Some phraseology is just weird and while some are technically correct do not reflect how a native speaker *should* write.

There is quite a bit of a change, but lets not forget the huge changes that have happend previously like from 2nd to 3rd.

I hope that when 6th ed comes out (if it does) then some of the flavour of these would be kept.

[Thornoo1]

Id di this up:
[URL="http://www.scribd.com/doc/78516555/Page-of-Contents-1-2"]Table of Contents[/URL]

Word wizardry at its best