6th Ed vs Faked 'leaked rules'

[Denzark]

Remember the fake ruleset from February-ish? Remember how a few people reckoned it rocked and it was the little Baby Jesus truth of rules?

Well where the piss is it now then? Also, can't say I have seen anyone come up to compare the 2 let alone say they preferred it. Personally I thought it was the biggest bag of bollocks since Rogue Trader 1st ed with greater barking toads, I am glad it ddn't come to pass.

Thoughts?

[Wildcard]

Hmm, cant remember any rules that i would have considered wrong, or lame, or straight on stupid in my opinion. As a rumoured leak, it was prone for rough edges, rules only partly written etc etc..

I remember 3 rules that i miss the most that did not make it into 6th (Note, that i haven't playtested or anything to be able to say how these would have impacted the rest of the game we know now):

1) Assault weapons could be used as a second ccw for the first round of combat if the model only had one close combat weapon of any kind to start with (save for 2handed ccws) - This would have basically given some units Rage equivalent situation - highly efficient if you got the charge, otherwise seriously hamstringed close combat capabilities..

2) Vehicles being able to fire different targets at their weapons (or enhanced version - give each vehicle "main gun" / "main weapons system" that could be fired to the different target than the rest *just a thought that just came to my mind while typing, so the latter is just from my imagination*

3) Accuracy based on movement. 6'es on flyers is a good start without making stuff too complicated.

Those or, to a degree varied rules i would have liked to see in the 6th

[DarkLink]

The rumored leak was some sort of GW playtest document, never intended to be 6th ed but something some of the designers played around with. It wasn't a completed document, so there were plenty of loopholes and such you'd expect from a rough draft of a ruleset, but the major changes the leak implemented (things similar but more drastic than 6th's Overwatch and Hull Points) were downright brilliant. Some of the ideas were taken over into 6th (Overwatch, Hull Points, improved Reserves) while others weren't (performing Run/Assault moves during the Movement phase, some aspects of the leak's Reserve rules).

Edit: actually, yes, the leak's Evasion rules were basically a more balanced, generally superior version of Snap Shot, though it's not a perfect correlation.

[Dalleron]

I was going to make a thread about the leaked ruleset, but with a slightly different question. So Ill post it here anyways.

Many an internet type were going on about how they would play the leaked rules over the next edition. Does anyone use the leaked rules today? Some tweaking was probably required I would think but does anyone use it to this day?

[Wildcard]

Dalleron: Personally no, for two obvious reasons:

1) "Leaked" was in no way polished, or even roughly playable (Too many things, atleast for my army, that has lots of questions and no answers etc etc..)

2) No way on earth i could get any of my group to play them over 'real 6th'

[Defenestratus]

Remember the fake ruleset from February-ish? Remember how a few people reckoned it rocked and it was the little Baby Jesus truth of rules?

Well where the piss is it now then? Also, can't say I have seen anyone come up to compare the 2 let alone say they preferred it. Personally I thought it was the biggest bag of bollocks since Rogue Trader 1st ed with greater barking toads, I am glad it ddn't come to pass.

Thoughts?

I played a couple games with it after I re-organized the ruleset so that it read better. I still like it better except for the stupid flyer rule that lets guys right under the flyer basically kill it.

Unfortunately once 6th hit, everyone started playing that which is fine and dandy. I just am already getting tired of 40k 5.5ed.