PDA

View Full Version : You favourite 40k edition



Karak Norn Clansman
16-10-2012, 19:36
Which is your favourite 40k edition? Please take a moment to vote in the poll, and feel free to explain the reasons for your choice.

I have no experience of 40k gameplay to speak about, but from a background and miniature perspective I will vote for 1st edition, Rogue Trader, if only because of the wealth of wacky background and miniature designs from that time. Those were concepts that has driven 40k onwards ever since. Otherwise I have no attatchment to any single edition, although the FW Death Korps miniatures hold a sublime place in my eyes.

In part this thread might be seen as a feedback source for GW if it swells large.

Radium
16-10-2012, 19:43
I voted 4th and 6th. I liked the abstractions in 4th (area terrain and all that) and the way the game felt back then. 6th is pretty awesome so far, except for stuff like aircron one. I really like the basis of this edition though!

SacredBoltgun
16-10-2012, 19:44
Defenitly 6th Edition. I play since 2nd Edi, buth 6th is by far the most fun in my opinion

Angelwing
16-10-2012, 19:47
4th. Good missions, only a couple of niggles with the rules.

Xeen
16-10-2012, 19:55
I voted for 4th, but 6th would be right up there absent the flyer abuse

Voss
16-10-2012, 23:53
1st and 6th.
I found very few redeeming features in 3rd and its pair of ugly stepchildren. 2nd was a bright, primary colour version of 1st, with lots of extra dice for no particular reason.

Firaxin
17-10-2012, 01:54
Is this strictly speaking just the core rules, or are we taking codexes into account, too?

Khornies & milk
17-10-2012, 02:14
4th Ed.
6th Ed is crap as I prefer balance to be achieved by other means than the BS stuff that GW went with, random nonsense mainly.

Hellebore
17-10-2012, 02:36
I much prefer the game from the context of the background before the 5th edition, before it became really shallow pulp 'my dad's 10x better than your dad' fanfic that it is today. Not even GW's silly prices could have kept me from buy their miniatures if their background hadn't taken such a nose dive.

Hellebore

owen matthew
17-10-2012, 08:30
I still miss third.

Kakapo42
17-10-2012, 08:59
I went with third, but really it was late third early fourth that I liked the most. Not so much the rules themselves, but simply that era. It may just be the nostalgia talking, but I still feel like the time on the eve of fourth edition and the end of third edition (basically around the time of and just after the Eye of Terror campaign) had something magical to it. Everything had such a lovely feel to it. The fact that the Specialist games were still somewhat mainstream and the release of the Tau (my favourite faction) probably helped too.

Threeshades
17-10-2012, 09:05
So far I only know 6th from the theoretical side, but it looks the most fun out of all the editions I read (which is 3rd to 6th), i hope i'll get an opportunity to play this game again one day. :rolleyes:

Though i did like the CC rules and abstract terrain in 4th.

Murphey
17-10-2012, 09:05
I voted for 4th. 4th had the best cover system (abstract, size categories, didn't penalize people for having tall models in impressive poses, didn't allow modelling for advantage, took 1/10th the time), best CC resolution (massacre), and by far the best victory point system to date. The first half of 4th was the best for me. It had the 3.5 Chaos Codex, 4th ed Tyranids, and 4th ed Space Marines; all excellent codices with tons of options. I loved playing against Chaos and Space Marines during that time. Chapter traits and legion rules allowed for crazy levels of diversity all in one codex and made for some really eccentric builds that were a really challenge to fight against.

Biggest downside with 4th was poor FAQ support and more ambiguous rules than was really acceptable from a major company. It made for some really annoying rules debates that detracted a lot from the game, but even so it was a great edition.

My most disliked by far was 5th. Stupid musical chairs and killpoint ******** turned 40k from a wargame into unrealistic, bureaucratic rules manipulation. (Lolz! I lost 90% of my army to his 30%. And I won because I can put my guys in larger squads!!11!!)

Azulthar
17-10-2012, 09:11
I too preferred the abstract setup of 4th. Also, the darker tone for the fluff set in 3rd was still visible (though already fading) in 4th.

Also voted 2nd for nostalgic reasons :p

Chilly McFreeze
17-10-2012, 12:51
I'd like to say 2nd for nostalgic reasons, as at the time I loved it, but looking back that rule set was better suited to smaller skirmish games like Necromunda. A 1500pt game used to take all day!

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

Ecclesiarch
17-10-2012, 12:57
Absolutely LOVE 6th (2nd in my ranking) however the crown for me has to go to 4th. Although I am biased as all the armys I collect were so powerful back then..... Sisters, Emperors Children, Dark Eldar Wych army. Man I miss consolidating into other combats!!! ...And my noise marine bikers/dreadnoughts/predators/havoks with sonic weapons! Fluff-wise 3rd was the best... so DARK and AWESOME! I miss REAL victory points (from 4th) !!! 5th was exciting for about 5 minutes and then just became absolutely awful! The edition of draw, complete with TH/SS termie spam - matt ward bumming drop podding gay night tyranid nerfing ughghghgh.... it was awful

bad dice
17-10-2012, 12:58
I voted 3rd cause that is when i really started playing i did 2nd for a few months but it was such a mess in retrospect. But when 3rd came out well lets just say they sold a lot of orks tnx to that .

(altough 5th and 6th are way better from a pure quality stanpoint)

IcedCrow
17-10-2012, 13:15
6th.

I started in 3rd, I probably would have enjoyed 2nd. Previous editions were too static, and imbalances too easily exploited by power gamers for it to be much fun for me. I even had a go with breaking the game in 3rd playing eldar with the good old starcannon. Won me some glorious trophies from that run of brilliance. :shifty:

Things like the rhino rush tactic, the hail mary streak across the table to engage in combat right away by turn 1/2, the 15 melta spam that was 5th (which is exactly the same as the 15 starcannon spam of 3rd), these things kill the game for me because there is absolutely zero imagination or thought process put into them.

I also realize 6th has its issues, mainly with the existing 5th codices that need aborted, but it has brought back levels of thinking and risk management to our game other than "i go forward as fast as I can".

I'm still on the look out for a decent game set like 40k, but haven't had any luck yet so with 40k i stay.

Fear Ghoul
17-10-2012, 13:34
Game-wise 6th edition would have to be my favourite edition so far. It takes most of the best of the previous editions, combines it all together, and simplifies at the same time. My second favouite would be 2nd edition due to its lovely modifier system and more gradiated system (D10's, D12's, etc). However at the same time it was ridiculously complicated for a skirmish game as assaults would take forever and tank parts could go flying off in random directions. 2nd edition was also horribly broken (Eldar auto-win) and required a lot of gentleman's agreements before the game would begin.

Background-wise I'm not sure there would be a best edition as they all have their warts. People who weren't around when the 3rd edition Necrons codex came out wouldn't believe the level of furore generated by the insinuation that the C'tan could defeat Chaos. Or the same controversy when the 4th edition Tyranid codex stated smething along the lines of "There are not enough bullets in the entire Imperium to kill every Tyranid" and suggested the Tyranids would defeat both the C'tan and Chaos. The special character background creep of today is nothing compared to the faction background creep of yesteryear. I did however prefer the emphasis on factions and unknown generic characters in previous editions to the prominence of special characters that we have now. Not that I have anything against special characters in games but I do dislike how the background timelines in the recent codexes read like a personal biography of each special character in the book. Whatever happened to Blood Angel Captain #385 stuggling against Ork Warboss #879324738902317484327891473980 in 39M?

iamcjb
17-10-2012, 13:37
3rd simply because it was so easy to play after 2nd Edition 40k, which ironically required 40000 dice to play.

Minsc
17-10-2012, 13:46
Except for the stupid woundallocation, I really liked 5th Ed.
Broken armybooks broke 5th Ed, the corerules we're fine.

I'm not sure what I think about 6th Ed. yet. There's much I like, but also some things I think are quite "wtf?".

My vote goes for 5th.

tiger g
17-10-2012, 13:57
Voted for 6th, loved 3rd and gave up the game completely for 4th and 5th

Poseidal
17-10-2012, 14:14
This is interesting, as it seems the current edition always gets a 'bonus'; the last favourite, 5th Edition is bottom of the stack here.

Personally, the 5th era was when the fluff took a major downgrade. For 6th, we've only seen Chaos Space Marines, which AFAIK is fine so far but I can't tell. In terms of rules, 6th actually seems better for the most part, removing some of the dodgy things (e.g. defensive weapons) from past editions, although is still shackled with the awful AP system.

What's more, in 4th, that was the time of 'less is more' basic codices. It's showing a strong representation in this poll so far, which is interesting.

Here is a past poll: http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?308453-Your-favorite-40k-edition&highlight=favourite+edition

ChrisMurray
17-10-2012, 16:06
I voted for 5th, I liked 4th and 5th but 5th just edges it for me. I haven't really gotten to grips with 6th yet, it seems like it's quite a bit more complicated and there are a lot of special rules to learn which is something I'm not a fan of, but we shall see what happens once I get to gaming.

Grimbad
17-10-2012, 17:46
Second (and only second) for me.

I find it odd that fourth is so much more popular than fifth. Early fifth edition seemed to me (and to everyone I knew) a significant improvement over late 4th. Could be that memories of late in 5th edition, when rules abuses had had their time to pile up, are the freshest, while editions further back get a more holistic appraisal.
I do fondly remember early 4th, when all the chapter approved lists were still hanging in there, but also remember the later parts being much more bland.

Nurgling Chieftain
17-10-2012, 18:23
Early fifth edition seemed to me (and to everyone I knew) a significant improvement over late 4th.Just like early 6th edition seems to a lot of people to be an improvement over late 5th. That's just the moment talking, though. 4th edition hit a sweet spot for a lot of us, and while there are definitely some rules I'd pull from later editions, 4th is still the core I'd prefer to work with. It's a more abstract ruleset, while 5th and 6th aim more "cinematic", which actually kind of ruins immersion for me. In 4th edition, there's a frikken' forest, which we're representing on the tabletop with a couple trees. In 5th/6th, there's really just a couple trees; they call it a forest, but it wouldn't even qualify as a grove, stand, or copse.

Minsc
17-10-2012, 18:24
Agree, I'm also slightly surprised that 4th get's more votes than 5th.
Probably the nostalgia that's clouding their judgement (or they have bad memories since late 5th was quite broken codex-wise).
5th was an improvement over 4th in many regards.

True LoS will never be a big hit though, I prefer the abstract LoS-rules from 4th.

jeffzcubfan
17-10-2012, 18:33
I've voting 6th for the current style of gaming. 1st was great, but it was more of a kill team game back then with the idea of using a story line to show the adventures of your squad. It would have been montrous to try to play a game on the scale we do nowdays.

Jeff

Fizzy
17-10-2012, 18:45
6th and before that 4th second to that.

Vaktathi
17-10-2012, 18:45
Not sure if I have a favorite edition. I really like a lot of things about several editions and really hated things about each of them as well. I like 4E's wound allocation and most of its missions along with its vehicle shooting rules but hated vehicle damage rules and skimmer ridiculousness and consolidating into CC, I liked 5E's transport and vehicle damage rules and Run/Fleet mechanics but hated Kill Points/wound allocation/defensive weapons rules, I like 6E's missions (mostly) and snapshot rules/overwatch/cover/expanded psychic powers/etc and the concept of flyers but really do not like 6E's vehicle damage rules, challenges, flyer implementation and Night Fight mechanic.


Overall, I'd say I have no "favorite" edition. Each edition seems more like a side-shift than an upgrade, and I think a lot of the 6th Ed votes will change in hindsight, there's still a lot of "new-shiny!" going on.

The_Klobb_Maniac
17-10-2012, 18:50
I think there is indeed some amount of "so glad it's new" ness when an edition changes; but it also gets rid of things you were tired of. I griped about 5th from start to finish (despite liking some things) and it was my first real edition (I entered very very late fourth and my army wasn't really ready until 5th.) Things became such a nuisance in 5th and the ruleset always felt "dirty"; like thrown together. 6th has the appeal that they've made absolute strides toward clarifying the rules.

One look at the rules forum even for a full *edition change* helps to show the difference. Most rules debates in there end rather quickly or only stubbornly go on by refusal to acknowledge something. In 5th you literally had many many undefined terms, rules interactions etc. Between the FAQs and the book, I think what I like most about 6th is only partly the rules, and much more the fact that the game is becoming more like a real game, and less like an argument waiting to happen.

Chapters Unwritten
17-10-2012, 18:58
Defenitly 6th Edition. I play since 2nd Edi, buth 6th is by far the most fun in my opinion

I like 6th the most as well. It feels the most complete the game has been in a long time, with everyone having a lot of worthwhile options and not so many immersion-breaking bits in the rules as there were in 4th and 5th. 4th was the silliest when it came to that; many things were abstracted that didn't really need to be, and it broke my immersion all the time. In 6h I feel like I'm playing a movie instead.

Scaryscarymushroom
17-10-2012, 18:58
I still miss third.

I still play third.

The fluff in the tail end of third and the beginning of fourth was probably the highlight of 40k for me, and it's a big factor in what I consider the "best" version of the game.
The second best aspect of 40k is the abundance of mission types, many of which were readily available in 3rd without having to buy expensive supplements.

Other than that, I like the way infantry, walkers, and vehicles handled in relation to one another in 3rd. I like the way guess range weapons worked in 3rd. As Andy Chambers says, a wargaming table is like a changeable canvas, and the way the miniatures are arranged on the table have a certain artistry about them. Miniatures move (and are removed from play) differently in 3rd: Some people say 3rd was static, but I believe 3rd is subtle, not static. A decisive victor could be determined well before a substantial number of casualties was inflicted.

Vaktathi
17-10-2012, 19:03
I still play third.

The fluff in the tail end of third and the beginning of fourth was probably the highlight of 40k for me, and it's a big factor in what I consider the "best" version of the game.This is definitely a good point. While personally I find 3rd ed's rules mechanics to be the weakest, 3rd ed/early 4th definitely had the best fluff "feel" even if not necessarily as fleshed out as 2nd/RT's. Late 4th got very bland and 5th read mostly like bad internet fanfic.

Morhgoz
17-10-2012, 20:02
1st, 3rd and 6th. First for ork & chaos stuff mostly and artwork. Third was better than 4th or 5th for reasons I don't have time to write now and 6th, well, maybe I will tell it some other time...

Notanoob
18-10-2012, 03:17
Fluff wise and codex wise? Late 3rd early 4th. I loved both Tyranid codexes, 3.5 CSM, and how all the factions were super customizable, like with Chapter Traits or Doctrines. I also really liked the Necrons, feel-wise and all, even though I know a number of people hated their insertion into everything.

From a pure rule-book perspective? 4th-5th-6th. They all had some good things going, but also missed on a few issues that proved critical (skimmers in 4th, TLOS and wound allocation in 5th, flyers in 6th) which screwed things up. However, it is hard to tell how much of this is due to the rulebooks themselves or just poorly (internally) balanced codexes.

Bergen Beerbelly
18-10-2012, 03:41
2nd edition and only 2nd edition. 1st was too much like a role playing game to me, 3rd made me VERY angry as it should have been a clearing up of the 2nd edition rules without a complete re write. And it wasn't done very well either. As is evidenced by Rhino Rush and things of that nature. It is also the era of Squat hatred and I have quite a substantial Squat army that I purchased and had no forewarning that they planned on removing them from the game. So 4th through 6th are just re makes of 3rd edition and since I hated 3rd edition, it uses most of the same mechanics...I.E. AP values, a different way to hit with Weapon Skill than existed in 2nd, crap vehicle rules, that just seem to get worse with every edition...just bad game design all the way around.

So 2nd edition all the way. You know. From when GW was run by people that liked making games, not making shareholders rich.

Hendarion
18-10-2012, 06:13
6th, except that they messed up entirely the stuff about Interceptors/Bombers and Rapid Fire weapons, as well as AP3 power weapons. And if you remove that, you have basically have 5th. So I voted 5th.

Azulthar
18-10-2012, 10:35
Agree, I'm also slightly surprised that 4th get's more votes than 5th.
True LoS will never be a big hit though, I prefer the abstract LoS-rules from 4th.
Abstract LoS is probably the biggest reason why I prefer 4th. I really don't like True LoS, models almost always have LoS as long as you spend 2+ minutes staring and moving your head (or, as is more common, just always grant it to your opponent) :mad:

Even though I voted 2nd for nostalgic reasons, one of the reasons I didn't vote 6th is because it's slow and fiddly... so yeah, nice pair of rose-tinted glasses I got there :cool:

nosebiter
18-10-2012, 10:44
TLOS I am also not a fan off.

And if I read or hear cinematic one more time.....i am gonna go all mental:D

I voted 2nd cause it was fun and the fluff was all great.
5th was the last gasping breath of the dying 3rd rules, 6th is it on life support.

6th should have been a entirely new game.

Gw should have come out and said "we wanna do a fantastic 40k game, so we will wait 1-2 years more then usual to release the rules and in the meantime complete the ranges with all plastic and put out new unit\vehicles in WD"

ChrisMurray
18-10-2012, 10:52
I personally like TLOS, but I can understand if your not gaming with friends then the "abstract" line of sight rules would be better.

Bladelord
19-10-2012, 22:11
How long time did the standard 2nd edition game use to take? I've heard talk about that edition on numerous occasions.

marv335
20-10-2012, 00:00
I've only played a few games of 6th Ed so far (I've been playing since RT days) but this one seems the best to me.
While there are balance issues at this point with flyers, I expect this to level out as more codecies are released.
I'm seeing armies that were universally regarded as low tier doing well.
I watched a Tau army take apart Space Wolves, for example.

Wyrmwood
20-10-2012, 01:08
I voted 6th, though I forgot to vote 4th as well. I'd like to play using 2nd Edition rules to give that a whirl. I hate 5th Edition.

althathir
20-10-2012, 02:12
I voted for 5th & 6th. I played a tiny bit of second but started again at the start of 3rd (ran eldar out of the index for awhile :D)

3rd: I liked it but the armies didn't seem to be balanced well (eldar, chaos), and the early books were razor thin.

4th: Seemed to have the most up & down design cycles. When you compare the 5th edition books they feel alot more similiar to each other than the 4th edition ones did, not fan of the vehicle rules either tranports were worthless unless they were skimmers. Do have to admit I prefrered the area terrain rules as well.

5th: Wound allocation rules, transports were too good, and MSU was basically the only way to play (thought was in part a byproduct of the army books w/ 35pt rhinos & the new transports rules). That said the books design seemed to be more consistent, troops were emphasized, obectives moved us away from just kill everything, and it feels like they achieved a good balance between IC & regular infantry.

6th: My complaints so far are fliers & allies, and both are actually really close to being positives. Allies bother me because Nids should have gotten something (or allies should have had a built-in drawback), and fliers because they haven't executed it well, so basically you have the haves and have nots. But otherwise I like the changes quite a bit.

DivineVisitor
20-10-2012, 16:42
6th but 2nd for nostalgia, games back then maybe took forever but that was part of the fun! :D

steeledcascade
20-10-2012, 16:51
Went for fourth simply on the basis of nostalgia as sixth runs it pretty close.

duffybear1988
20-10-2012, 19:02
3rd edition was the best for me. I would love to know how many of those who voted for 5th and 6th actually played RT, 2nd, 3rd and 4th editions.

At my local club there is a very clear division between the old school veterans who were weaned on Rogue Trader, 2nd and 3rd, who grew up with nice metal figures, and those newbies who think 6th edition is the bees knees and that Finecast is even better than sliced bread.

As for people who moan about the thinness of the old 3rd edition books - admittedly they were thin, but they had everything that was needed. Also they didn't have Mat Ward writing the fluff. Back in those days the 41st millennium was what you made it.

Poseidal
20-10-2012, 19:23
After the 2nd ed codex volume, the 3rd ed codices seemed really lacklustre. It was annoying most of your wargear selections were on cards from Dark Millennium though.

Wyrmwood
20-10-2012, 20:23
3rd edition was the best for me. I would love to know how many of those who voted for 5th and 6th actually played RT, 2nd, 3rd and 4th editions.

At my local club there is a very clear division between the old school veterans who were weaned on Rogue Trader, 2nd and 3rd, who grew up with nice metal figures, and those newbies who think 6th edition is the bees knees and that Finecast is even better than sliced bread.
Weird. I started during 3rd Edition and played that all the way through 4th Edition and stopped early during 5th Edition. 4th and 6th are my favourites. I liked the later 3rd Edition codices but the core rules were a bit iffy. 3rd and early 4th would most likely be my favourite from a fluff perspective, with 5th being the worst for both new fluff and the rule changes.

Valorel
20-10-2012, 20:57
6th without a 2nd thoughts.
3rd would be my second choice.

HereticHammer01
20-10-2012, 21:25
I picked both 4th and 6th. 6th plays suprisingly well with the randomness and was a big improvement on 5th I think. 4th had a lot of rules which made sense I think.

Murphey
21-10-2012, 19:31
I personally like TLOS, but I can understand if your not gaming with friends then the "abstract" line of sight rules would be better.

Yeah, I can't stand TLOS. I have been so heavily penalized for that rule it's insane. When it comes to my conversions (i.e. every one of my models) I let my artistic sensibilities take the lead. Unfortunately, with TLOS, this screws me. I have a winged hive tyrant that is mounted on a 3 inch thick rock on his base, and as a result of this, he can never, ever get out of LoS or even manage a cover save most of the time. Same goes from my Demon Princes, Chaos Dreadnoughts, etc.

Conversely, it opens up a huge window for modeling-for-advantage. I know a guy who models his wraithlords specifically crouching or crawling to allow them to always get a cover save, even from almost nonexistent pieces of terrain.

Abstract LoS rules was simply superior, imo, because my Tyrant would not be dragging his rock with him, nor would my soldiers be standing up tall, roaring their defiance at the sky when it would get them killed.

Karak Norn Clansman
07-10-2013, 21:56
It's a year on since the thread was started. How do you think 6th edition has evolved?

TheDungen
07-10-2013, 23:35
third, because that's when I started and also csm 3.5 ;)

S_A_T_S
08-10-2013, 01:38
3rd edition was the best for me. I would love to know how many of those who voted for 5th and 6th actually played RT, 2nd, 3rd and 4th editions.

As for people who moan about the thinness of the old 3rd edition books - admittedly they were thin, but they had everything that was needed. Also they didn't have Mat Ward writing the fluff. Back in those days the 41st millennium was what you made it.

I too would like to know how many who picked 6th have ever played 1st, 2nd or 3rd, and if opinions have changed - reading the Whineseer rants about 6th and my own opinions of specific rules, I was surprised it was rated so highly.

I picked 2nd and 4th. I've been playing since 2nd ed., but haven't played a single game of 6th - I moved counties just before release so it took so long settling in that when I was ready to start playing again, I didn't wanna have to learn a whole new system from people who'd been playing more than a year. I mostly picked 2nd because it had the widest background and material of the editions I have played, and I've been reading the Necromunda Omnibus which got me hankering for some old school gaming ;). 4th I picked because I remember it being better than 3rd, and I was irritated by several things added in 5th, like no assaults from transports, Grey Knights, removal of area terrain (soooo many arguments caused by that - TLoS is still subjective. If a guys base overlaps the boundary of area terrain, there is no argument, he's in cover.)

And who complains about thinness?!? Those books weighed nothing, could easily be slipped into a bag or be flung across a room/board to the other player without worry, had everything you needed, one of them was the best Chaos Codex EVER (according to Warseer, anyway...) and were also LESS THAN HALF THE PRICE THEY ARE NOW. 12 for a codex was a great deal, especially compared to the 30, heavy, bland, unnecessarily fluff-stuffed, full colour wastes of space they are now. If you want detailed background, Black Library is there, the 40k Wiki goes intricate, or you just make up your own stories like it was in the days of Rogue Trader and 2nd. Otherwise, the good overview and description of the faction we used to get was good enough.

Archon of Death
08-10-2013, 01:51
3rd. It was the edition that I started playing in and it was the edition that gave me:

Harlequins as their own force
Armoured Company as their own force through GW
Rules for creating your ow vehicles
The absolute awesomeness of Chaos (although it needed some tweeks because it could easily be broken, it allowed for a very nice bit of customization and what I would expect of the cost of these current rulebooks, not a bunch of silly modeling pictures and background, instead you got options, lots of options, something this edition is missing)
Cheaper cost of models (for a couple hundred dollars you could field an entire 1500 point army, as opposed to the 700 it costs now, even including the economic crash the prices are significantly larger than they need to be, and the issue is that GW is too focused on gouging the fans still loyal enough to play instead of bringing in new fans)
Index Astartes which allowed you to play SM with options based on which geneseed or chapter you followed

Seriously, as far as any of the editions have done, I have enjoyed 3rd more than any other edition. 6th COULD be there, if they allowed more options, but they seem to be moving away from options and more toward simplicity and balance, while at the same time saying "Nah, we don't care if some things are OP because stop being competitive in our competitive game." If they wanted the game to be balanced they'd hire some mathematicians to sit there and make some differential equations to determine how many points each unit/upgrade should cost.

Light of the Emperor
08-10-2013, 01:55
5th edition. I enjoyed everything about it. Then 6th came...

...My time is now occupied solely by Fantasy and LotR.

Felwether
08-10-2013, 02:59
Voted for both 4th and 6th. 4th because I did like its more abstract LOS rules but 6th edition has to be my absolute favourite edition. Since 6th was released I've played at least one game almost every week because I've become a member of a great club AND I've met loads of new hobbyists in the process. There are a few little issues I have with the system itself but overall my experience has been terrific.

Marshal_Loss
08-10-2013, 03:06
3.5, it's when I started playing. :)

Ironbone
08-10-2013, 10:15
I'm bit torn between 4th, 5th and 6th ed. It's nice to see progresion from absurdly CC orienteted game to more balanced one, but in fact every edition have some "this is awesome!" and "what imbecile wrote this?" moments :D.

4th have realy nice vechicle rules. Tanks were not a eggshells in close combat, can fire lot of guns, and bit of abstactionism in rules do not hurt game at large. On the other hand, consolidation into new combat made killing unit after unit absurdaly easy. Also immortal eldar skirmmers, broken CSM and Nekrons. And Guard was lame army, wich is sin byond redemption :mad:.

In 5th i realy liked close combat rules. As Guard player, wich says something :p. But kill points sytsem, awkward wounds alocation that allows so much :cheese:, and o top of that GK codex...No, just no.

6th ed is still relativle new one. Some rules are realy nice, some not so much. At damm last shooting is alomst equal to cc :eek: :D. I think it's good enough to give it a credit of trust.

Bloodknight
08-10-2013, 18:27
I voted 2nd and 5th, but I like 2nd just a tiny bit more because it's like RT, but playable.



As for people who moan about the thinness of the old 3rd edition books - admittedly they were thin, but they had everything that was needed. Also they didn't have Mat Ward writing the fluff

They had nobody writing the fluff, really. The books were all gutted versions of the 2nd edition codices, which are even today still worth reading.


How long time did the standard 2nd edition game use to take? I've heard talk about that edition on numerous occasions.

2000 points per side took a whole evening instead of the 2ish hours it takes now, but with half the models, roughly. The extra time it took was mostly due to the CC phase which was done on a model per model basis, and a lot of deviating grenade effects (smoke, plasma, vortex) and some psychic power effects that remained in play and moved around.

Thrax
08-10-2013, 19:18
I picked 4th because it was an improvement over 3rd. 5th was a disappointment and 6th is a different kind of disappointment.

Torga_DW
08-10-2013, 19:23
They had nobody writing the fluff, really. The books were all gutted versions of the 2nd edition codices, which are even today still worth reading.

Keep in mind they weren't meant to have fluff in them, that was released separately as the index astartes series. The mini-dexes were just supposed to be gaming books, and i loved them for that. Too bad they never released the index xenos. :(

Karak Norn Clansman
08-10-2013, 19:34
The only good thing about the 3rd edition Eldar codex was the front cover. I sure liked the wealth of content in White Dwarf during that time, but the lack of background content in the codices was laughable. Everything would have been perfectly fine if GW had just upped the codex background without lowering the WD content.

Anopheles
09-10-2013, 04:46
4th, mostly for the variety of missions.

Damocles8
09-10-2013, 05:09
6th was my vote, then would be 5th and finally 4th, absolutely hated 4th, too much rule abuse with skimmers, rending, and consolidating.

duffybear1988
09-10-2013, 08:55
The only good thing about the 3rd edition Eldar codex was the front cover. I sure liked the wealth of content in White Dwarf during that time, but the lack of background content in the codices was laughable. Everything would have been perfectly fine if GW had just upped the codex background without lowering the WD content.

I disagree - the price was also a good thing, and later when the Craftworld and Eye of Terror books came out you could build some really cool variant lists.

The problem with a poll like this is that it's mostly going to be skewed towards 6th being most popular anyway. That's because the latest kits will have no doubt brought in new gamers who have no experience of the wonders of the older versions, and because those gamers unhappy with 6th edition will have left, with a few like myself roaming the forums in the dwindling hope that 7th edition is a much better beast.

I know 4th edition wasn't perfect and it had some issues with overpowered armies, but on the whole the rules made far more sense and games were actually enjoyable. When I look at 6th edition I see a step back from 4th edition, and frankly those overpowered units are still here. I also see a definite shift towards tournament style list building. For the edition that's supposed to be for fun gamers where everything is cinematic and themed I have to say that personally I don't view it as such - all 6th edition does is tell you to create a narrative for why your 3 helldrakes and plague marines are supported by a horde of guardsmen and a vendetta. Gamers have been given free passes to break every rule and come up with some stupidly powerful armies. Yes this is a game but there have to be restrictions! What we have now is essentially chaos.

You want cinematic and fun? Try the missions in 4th edition.

totgeboren
09-10-2013, 09:11
I voted 4th, even though it had silly rending rules and invulnerable eldar skimmers. Still, the first part of 4ed was really fun, maybe because the rules were so much better than 3ed. The problems in 4ed were down to a few specific rule interactions imo, which I felt was pretty good as far as GW is concerned.
4th to 5th was really a give-and-take situation. They removed a lot of good stuff, but also fixed a few bad things. This was the introduction of scoring units and kill points, both which limit the amount of viable armies to a remarkable degree.

Same with 5ed to 6ed, a bunch of stuff fixed, but instead we got really bad challenge rules and flyer rules that really take away from the game, not to mention badly thought trough psychics (allowing DtW vs Witchfires who are on average crap, whilst not allowing it vs Blessings which are on average pretty game-changing is just stupid for example).

Still, having played since RT days, I think it is almost a draw between 6ed and 4ed. Both have lots of good things and a few bad things, both which are noticeable after just a few games so it makes little sense that GW missed them. :/

Abaraxas
09-10-2013, 09:36
Voted for 2nd edition, still playing 2nd edition-I did make an effort with 3rd and a dabble in 4 or 5 but didn't have the passion for it.

Fluffwise I remain stuck in that late RT early 2nd era from when I discovered 40K, cherry picking what I like from more recent additions to the universe.

Spider-pope
09-10-2013, 09:55
In terms of rules, it would be 6th. But that's not the edition i've voted for. Instead i've voted for 3rd for the following reasons.

I first started playing during the last few years of 2nd edition, although to be frank, as a young kid i didn't know what i was doing. I was one of those annoying Timmies who bought Codexes but not rulebooks, who mixed up the rules between 40k and Fantasy and generally wandered around in a daze.

The launch of 3rd edition changed that. For the first time, i bought the starter set. For the first time i read the rules properly, and learned them, and everything clicked into place. So for sheer nostalgia of those early, proper days of hobbying, i have to vote for 3rd.

Johnnya10
09-10-2013, 17:01
I voted for 6th. Cut my teeth in 2nd and can get very nostalgic for it from time to time, but I have to say that 6th has been awesome. And 2nd could be either a bit of a drag or monumentally fun chaos. 6th is far better all-round.

As for the others, never played 1st, barely remember 3rd (except that I remember not liking it), never played 4th, caught the second half of 5th and thought it was ok.

Carlosophy
09-10-2013, 17:45
Easy: 3rd. GW gave us a wonderfully streamlined ruleset to play the game with and made sure we were well supported. I particularly enjoyed the transport rules with none of this access and fire point nonsense; just get yourself out within 2" of the entire tank.

Every edition since has built on this foundation and the game has now come full circle again where we have an overly detailed ruleset that GW expects us to be using in large scale engagements. There is a reason I have found 6th to be the most fun at 1000pts when all the silly aircraft and monsters have been cut out.

Menthak
09-10-2013, 18:13
Picked 6th, but I'd remove fliers in a heartbeat.

Samsonov
09-10-2013, 18:37
2nd. Admittedly, I gave up during 3rd. Basically, 2nd resembles world war two whilst 3rd basically resembles Napoleonics. Given that people are armed with assault rifles 2nd edition is vastly more realistic.

Bloodknight
09-10-2013, 21:23
3rd. GW gave us a wonderfully streamlined ruleset to play the game with and made sure we were well supported. I particularly enjoyed the transport rules with none of this access and fire point nonsense; just get yourself out within 2" of the entire tank.

3rd was mostly awesome for everything Space Marine, though. Could have been better when other armies are put into that picture. Support was good, but I'd pin that on the unusually long shelf life of 3rd edition due to GW acquiring LOTR (6 years instead of the usual 4, so 50% extra time). In the end, 3rd was pretty much a mess, way too much additionial stuff to carry around to make it work. Also, the WD trial CC rules made it much better than it was in the beginning, no wonder most tourneys made them mandatory at the end.
It's easily my least cherished edition of all, because the basic rules kind of sucked (close combat in particular, winning just catapulted units around on the field faster than their transport tank could have made them move around, the rest was ok) and there had to be way too many bandaids put on it to get a proper game out of it. It showed that it was a radical departure from the game before it, particularly in the terribly lame codex books. The Dark Eldar needed a reprint with a giant errata to have more than 3 units that worked...

buddy_revell
09-10-2013, 22:20
voted 2nd.

2nd Ed's use of modifiers made the most sense, to me, and because of that felt like it was the most complete. the wy the wargear book, rule book and codecii were laid out (as well as giving an enormous sense of nostalgia now) was appealing; there was a lack of the po-faced grimdark, and it was allowed to be silly.

i bet my age at the time , and the nostalgia i get from it now are influencing my decision, but id still happily play 2nd tomorrow over 6th (which i still enjoy loads.)

buddy_revell
09-10-2013, 22:32
3rd edition was the best for me. I would love to know how many of those who voted for 5th and 6th actually played RT, 2nd, 3rd and 4th editions.


i played them in no particular order, but i like 6th a lot, and i like 2nd a lot. i undertsand the need for the rewrite from 2nd to 3rd, but 3rd made no sense to me at the time so i binned it off. i never played 4th. 5th i enjoyed but was frustrated with. 6th i enjoy loads but if it were up to me, id swap out the AP system for 2nd edition's modifiers.

rogue trader i played briefly, but didnt really enjoy it.

fergusm
10-10-2013, 05:17
I feel like 6th had some great changes for shooting and wound allocation.

duffybear1988
10-10-2013, 08:34
@ buddy_revell

Since my quoted post I have been playing a lot of 4th edition against my brother. I have to say I now prefer it to 3rd edition. 3rd was good because it was pretty streamlined, but 4th really neatened the whole thing up and gave us those wonderful missions.

tuebor
10-10-2013, 10:30
4th have realy nice vechicle rules. Tanks were not a eggshells in close combat, can fire lot of guns, and bit of abstactionism in rules do not hurt game at large. On the other hand, consolidation into new combat made killing unit after unit absurdaly easy. Also immortal eldar skirmmers, broken CSM and Nekrons. And Guard was lame army, wich is sin byond redemption :mad:

I absolutely hated this about 3rd and 4th. I've played Guard since the Eye of Terror and in both 3rd and 4th to have any chance at winning I could never really move my Guard without either putting my whole army in jeopardy from consolidating units or wasting my firepower. It always felt like I would spend two or three turns rolling dice at them and they'd spend the rest of the game rolling dice at me. When 5th came along I could actually advance without giving my opponent a convenient path of bodies to waltz through my entire army with a single tactical squad. It actually allowed me to meaningfully participate in 2/3 of the phases, something which I greatly appreciate. I was often told "just space your squads 6" apart!" but back then there was no mechvet build to reduce your footprint so unless you were playing 1000 points or less it wasn't really feasible.

I'm really enjoying 6th so far even if I haven't had the time to play it as much as I played earlier editions. I really like the wound allocation mechanic and the changes to rapid fire especially. I think one problem many gaming groups has is that they don't use enough terrain or they place it all towards the edges so there's a large no-man's land in the middle. My group wasn't so keen on 6th until we started putting large LOS blocking terrain in the middle so shooty armies couldn't hit everything on the board and then the game started to become a lot more fun.