I have now spent some time with this ruleset, and let me tell you something, it is a good set of rules.... at least as far as a playset goes. There are people on both sides of the issue now, and I am curious what the readers here think. So its time to start another poll, now up along the left hand side of the page.

Personally I was sitting at 50/50 for a long time, until I spent a couple hours reading them. I am now going to up my game, and put them at a 75% being real. Of course GW will deny them, but I think now that there is a good chance these were real and current as of May 2011. Just correlating the new FAQ's, the latest codices, and other rumors and information we have, it looks like this thing could be real.

18 Comments:

  1. After finally reading it, I am convinced that when it was written, it was legitimate. Obviously, it will have changed since then, but it certainly looks like an improvement.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm personally convinced. Not only is it visually consistent with past GW leaks, it's internally balanced - I wouldn't expect a forger to accomplish either, let alone both. Not to mention it's getting endorsements from some of the most level-headed community members out there.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Pillar:
    Agree on most every point.

    Only problem with the rules is the state the document is in, it is a bit hard to make all rule examples to make sense. But using search in the pdf to find every instance of Overwatch for example helps, many rules are old things that just got a new fancy name and was made more clear of what is really going on when it happen and why.
    And I hope there are adjustments made to some rules and units; Monolith for example is way too good as it stands in this.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 6th Edition is rumoured to be arriving this year. When I have the rulebook, I'll know whether the 'leaked' rules were real or not.

    Until then I'm 50/50.

    "I believe everything, and I believe nothing"

    ReplyDelete
  5. Who cares? Either way the real rules come out later this year

    ReplyDelete
  6. Although visually convincing, the style of writing and the tone used doesn't seem to match official GW material, at least not to me.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I am 80% sure they were legit at the time of writing, after poring over them for a couple hours. The BS "to hit" chart is actually a pretty good system, makes fast stuff a lot more survivable: DE eat your heart out. Also, Deepstriking is WAY powered up! No scattering if 18" away? No mishap, just shaken? and did I read this right, or can you (move?) shoot, and ASSAULT after DS'ing? someone please point out any reason they couldn't in the leak, I couldn't find anything. Also, the CC to hit chart is MUCH better. Assaults are better, vehicles are toned down (stacking stunned results destroys weapons? yes please!) And- no more random movement. Thank you GW. you listen to your fans.
    Eternal Glory to Chaos.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Truth Is Out Of There.

    :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. even if its 1 to 1 the end rulebook
    i don´t see what the use of knowing that is?
    you can´t realy prepare for it and..
    the game doesn´t change much it just rebalances the armys... makeing some dexes & units hot some not... just to push sales... as it is always

    the real intressting thing will be the price and the content of the starter box IMO

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm going to laugh when it turns out none of this had anything to do with the actual product when its released

    ReplyDelete
  11. I dont' see the point on voting if it's real or not. Wouldn't it make more sense to vote on if you WANT it to be real or not? Or if you think it's a decent and balanced set of rules?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. its fun is the only real point. It really doesnt make a difference one way or the other in the end. I am curious though as to how many peole think it is real

      Delete
    2. Regardless of it being real or not, I can honestly say after having played a few games with the "rules" that they are leaps and bounds better than 5th edition. Much more fun, much better balance overall, and more things to think about. The only thing I think might need to be tweaked is blast deviation. As it stands, it may be a little too small as proposed.

      Delete
  12. What Shrike said. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  13. What makes me a sceptic is that Mat Ward will most probably do the ruleset and the 'leaked' stuff doesn't really fit the stuff he's been writing so far. WHFB 8th is all about simplification and accessability, whereas the .pdf in question seems quite convoluted with tedious rules and exceptions from exceptions from exceptions from those rules etc. Jump, Flying, Flight Pack infantry? Really?
    Even though this might be some kind of draft version, i highly doubt, or better: hope, 6th ed will be that opaque and clumsy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very good points. The trend is towards dumbing down the rules. I think this is a reflection of our society in general...

      Delete
  14. are you all really so sure?

    ReplyDelete
  15. If it is too well written, cogent and playable, of course it is NOT real!

    Someone should hire the "author(s)" to make it real.

    ReplyDelete

 
Top
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...