78925
Post by: Sir Arun
Give it a long, hard think.
Not just the rules, but the entire meta at the time as well, aka powerlevels of all armies, overall balance, games you have played, experiences had etc.
I joined the game 4th edition onwards, so I cannot say much about previous editions, but so far I have to say 5th edition was the best for me - it had a fine balance between ranged and assault; and with only troops being able to score, gave them more importance as well, because previously most people were loading on up elites and heavy support.
Back then most armies were more or less matched as well - only toward the end did GK and Necrons shake up the meta, but you cant fault them because their old codexes were literally piles of poo - Necrons had like less than 10 different units in total, making for a very boring and predictable army, and GK were Daemonhunters and struggled against anything other than Chaos.
4th edition, of course, is a good runner up for me, because not everybody was able to run back then, giving agile armies like D/Eldar, Tyranids etc. more significance; you had even more power for assault oriented armies due to them being able to sweep into other units and the meta was less mechanized compared to 5th due to vehicles not being as hard to destroy (but for that Eldar vehicles were nigh unkillable)
6th edition shook the game way too hard IMO, introducing a whole array of complicated new rules like different melee weapons, FoC shenanigans (2000+ points), allies, flyers, overwatch etc. and 7th IMO basically said "screw it guys, this is just one huge fragfest now, bring all your toys to the table", while giving special emphasis to the chaos daemons.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
2nd. Good scale and model count, in depth but generally sensible rules and it definitely allowed the forging of a good narrative. Beset by the perennial GW issues of poor balance, in some cases extreme inbalance, and cluncky rules but I enjoyed it far more than any later editions.
77159
Post by: Paradigm
6th. Much better than 5th, and I have no desire to move to 7th when 6th does exactly what I need it to.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
2nd had my favourite core rules. The game was quite unbalanced still, but definitely my favourite basic rules structure. It also had the potential to be balanced, IMO 3rd-7th edition are unbalanced right to the core, you can tweak the armies and get it better than it is now, but I feel like the core rules encourage imbalance more than they encourage balance.
44341
Post by: tyrannosaurus
7th. I can now use my Lords of War and Maelstrom games mean every turn counts, and is exciting. I have loads more options for creating fluffy armies.
Having said that I only started in 5th so can't talk about the ones before.
77909
Post by: monders
2nd, because I can still remember the rules (to the extent that I still make mistakes like trying to throw grenades) and I still have the card stock scenery.
77605
Post by: KTG17
I voted 2nd because its the set that blew me out of the water. No other set has come close to impressing me until 6th. I am sure most peeps today look at 2nd and its models and want to laugh, but you have to understand that after Rogue Trader, tons of books, and endless White Dwarf articles on the evolving game, 40k was in bit of a mess and really kept me from enjoying it. the 2nd edition box set changed all that by resetting everything and giving everything you needed for awhile in one box. Its hard to explain unless you went thru it. Its kind of clunky today with all of the cards, but small games are a blast to play. Its the last time 40k was colorful and fun, whereas today its all very dark and serious.
Also, each member of a squad could shoot at whatever the hell he wanted. What the hell happened to that. Geez.
87242
Post by: Mumblez
7th for me. I started playing in 5th edition and although I enjoyed it, my experience was very limited. I played a lot against necrons, who were very weak back then with their old book, some against marines and a bit of eldar, but that's it.
I kept playing for a while, but I wasn't having that much fun somehow. At around the same time, a bunch of real life stuff came up and I ended up dropping 40K eventually. I don't think 5th edition was awful mind you, but the me back then couldn't for the life of him decide what kind of ork army he really wanted, which made things frustrating.
Now I'm back and I'm liking 7th edition a lot. Maelstrom of war and the inclusion of LoW, fortifications, multi-CAD and unbound makes for great beer and pretzels games, which is what I'm looking for.
87012
Post by: Toofast
Hmm, I guess 7th isn't the train wreck everyone worried about after all. I voted for 7th because it can be whatever you want it to be. If you want apoc with ridiculously OP super heavies, you can have that. If you want to use riptides, wraith knights and flyrants in the same army, you can do that too. If you want to play "standard" 40k with normal force organization, that's also fine. I have yet to run into an issue where people abused the open rules of 7th. It's not great for pick up games but I would much rather play with a group of people I know who won't do anything super cheesy unless that's the kind of game I'm looking for.
47246
Post by: Yonan
Toofast wrote:Hmm, I guess 7th isn't the train wreck everyone worried about after all.
72% think it's inferior to previous editions - it's about as bad as expected.
66089
Post by: Kangodo
 Yonan wrote:72% think it's inferior to previous editions - it's about as bad as expected.
Math doesn't really work like that.
One could say that 75% think 5th edition is inferior to previous editions.
Does that mean 5th was also a train-wreck?
87012
Post by: Toofast
You're working really hard to portray the numbers in a way that ignores the fact that it is the most preferred edition in this poll. The last time I saw someone skew numbers like that was in the national unemployment rate...
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
I'm surprised 2nd is so popular given that, being that it's been 16 years since 3rd came out, I figured most people playing now would never have played it.
47246
Post by: Yonan
Toofast wrote:You're working really hard to portray the numbers in a way that ignores the fact that it is the most preferred edition in this poll. The last time I saw someone skew numbers like that was in the national unemployment rate...
You're working really hard to ignore the fact that GW obviously doesn't make enough overall improvements to their product each edition, given that 72% of people preferred the product in some form previous to its current one.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Toofast wrote:You're working really hard to portray the numbers in a way that ignores the fact that it is the most preferred edition in this poll. The last time I saw someone skew numbers like that was in the national unemployment rate...
The poll is rather simplistic, you have to take in to account many of the people who don't like 6th and 7th would have quit and thus no longer be on the forum to vote and the fact that 72% of people think the current edition isn't the best is more significant than 74% of people thinking an edition that was replaced 2 years ago isn't the best.
87012
Post by: Toofast
I understand that many have quit, but I think a lot of them still visit the forum (mostly to talk about how GW killed Kennedy, brought the twin towers down, lead a satanic cult, and sacrifice orphaned children to the throne of the emperor). I'm also aware that it is a fairly small sample size and probably not a good measure of the community at large yet. However, reading the popular opinion on this forum and others, I did not expect 7th to be leading or even close to it. I think people, especially wargamers, have a tendency to over exaggerate the potential downside of things and ignore the good side. Many people who bash 7th haven't even played a single game. Everyone I've talked to that actually gave 7th a chance has enjoyed the open ended aspects of the rules.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Plenty of people have been praising 7th ed as well as condemning it, I don't think 30% approval is surprising given the amount of people who praise 7th.
88358
Post by: Hubris
The current 7th is the edition im enjoy the most, 6th got me having fun with the game again but 7th has just boosted that a little more.
32806
Post by: Chumbalaya
5th was my favorite. The game was as balanced as it's ever been, tournaments and events boomed and things were great overall. It could have been better, sure, but compared to everything else it's no contest.
66740
Post by: Mythra
7th was my favorite edition but I loved my 5th-6th Ed Drop pod Nid army list. I never lost with it so that was my favorite army.
32752
Post by: Tigurius
You know what, I play 40k for fun. I like to win, I play to win and I design my army list as well as I can. But I'm not "competitive" in a Tournament way or even a "butthurt if I lose" way.
What I find fun is the fact 7th edition lets you do what you want, within reason. It's going more Skyrim rather than Call of Duty singleplayer. Automatically Appended Next Post: Toofast wrote:I understand that many have quit, but I think a lot of them still visit the forum (mostly to talk about how GW killed Kennedy, brought the twin towers down, lead a satanic cult, and sacrifice orphaned children to the throne of the emperor). I'm also aware that it is a fairly small sample size and probably not a good measure of the community at large yet. However, reading the popular opinion on this forum and others, I did not expect 7th to be leading or even close to it. I think people, especially wargamers, have a tendency to over exaggerate the potential downside of things and ignore the good side. Many people who bash 7th haven't even played a single game. Everyone I've talked to that actually gave 7th a chance has enjoyed the open ended aspects of the rules.
This, wrapped up in a pretty bow.
I'll admit that the tactical objectives and the maelstrom of war weren't my cup of tea, but after getting used to it, I'm not going back to Eternal War.
62560
Post by: Makumba
most people that quit the game, quit it, they sell the armies, what for would they go to forums about stuff they don't own.
5th was the best for me . 6th was imbalanced becuase of ally matrix. 7th is MSU spam and random galor, not much of a game when losing is due to how good you draw missions cards.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Makumba wrote:most people that quit the game, quit it, they sell the armies, what for would they go to forums about stuff they don't own.
The people who quit 40k but still come back to the forums tend to be the ones who are still hopeful it will get better or still have money/time enough invested they don't want to walk away. Most my friends who have played and quit over the past 18 or so years don't touch it anymore, they don't come to forums, a couple still have their armies packed away in boxes most have sold them.
Those are the people who's vote aren't being heard.
64995
Post by: John Rainbow
Nice to see 7th getting some love!
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Toofast wrote:Many people who bash 7th haven't even played a single game.
While I agree playing a game and forming an opinion is better than not, for many people who have been gaming for a while they know without having to play a game what they will and won't like. I must be psychic or something because it took me exactly zero games to decide what aspects of 3rd ed I didn't like and 16 years later and many games later, those aspects still irk me. It took me exactly zero games to decide the aspects of 8th ed Fantasy I didn't like it as much as 7th, my opinion hasn't changed. I'm currently reading through Bolt Action and I'm already picking up things I do and don't like about it, I'm guessing that after several games those things will remain the same. When it comes to 7th edition, where it's basically just a reworked 6th edition, forming an opinion when you haven't played it but do have experience with previous editions is totally valid. Maybe other people are just more perceptive than you  
81867
Post by: 40KNobz11
I actually really enjoyed 5th. 7th is also fantastic!!! 6 was terrible
50563
Post by: quickfuze
Any edition where you actually played your own codex, not some melting pot crap mix of 5 armies. You know..... back when winning was determined during the game, not during list creation.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Toofast wrote:You're working really hard to portray the numbers in a way that ignores the fact that it is the most preferred edition in this poll. The last time I saw someone skew numbers like that was in the national unemployment rate...
Me thinks that maybe you spoke a bit too soon on this one...
47246
Post by: Yonan
PhantomViper wrote:Toofast wrote:You're working really hard to portray the numbers in a way that ignores the fact that it is the most preferred edition in this poll. The last time I saw someone skew numbers like that was in the national unemployment rate...
Me thinks that maybe you spoke a bit too soon on this one...
Ouch, almost twice as many prefer fifth over seventh and just as many prefer fourth. Only 1 in 5 find the latest edition to be the best.
61618
Post by: Desubot
So far its 7th with minimal psychic insanity.
53985
Post by: TheKbob
While 5E had it's issues, it's the closest they've gotten to a good, clean game. The Grey Knights were not designed for a 5E style, but the 6E style. It showed that they were still a great book during 6E, but they kicked down all the doors in 5E. Prior to the Grey Knights, there was still a lot of mech spam, but it felt like what the game was given the scale.
I feel like had they stayed on course with 5E and gotten back to supporting tournaments, they'd have been a lot better for it. I started off hesitant, then liking, then loathing allies. It's dumb, get rid of them. Powers have gotten too powerful and too random; they should go back to being purchased by points.
I'm glad to see that so many people are wanting back that 5E (and the same flavor, 4E) versus the new stuff we have.
47246
Post by: Yonan
Given the fondness for 5th, I'm wondering if 5th would be a good, easy basis for some small modifications to make a "tolerable for all" 40k. Some balance tweaks here, a systems change there etc.
53985
Post by: TheKbob
Yonan wrote:Given the fondness for 5th, I'm wondering if 5th would be a good, easy basis for some small modifications to make a "tolerable for all" 40k. Some balance tweaks here, a systems change there etc.
Wasn't that "pancake" edition?
47246
Post by: Yonan
I came in on the tail of 5th so I don't know too much about it other than "mech spam" was heavily favoured. I do know that everyone around here preferred it to 6th and no one is playing 7th though hehe.
53985
Post by: TheKbob
Yonan wrote:I came in on the tail of 5th so I don't know too much about it other than "mech spam" was heavily favoured. I do know that everyone around here preferred it to 6th and no one is playing 7th though hehe.
"Leafblower" guard were a thing (tons of tanks and Vendettas), Long Fang spam (when missiles were scary!), and even Blood Angels were backend tighteners. Eldar and Tau were tepid, but Dark Eldar and Crons were good, too. It was probably the closest I've felt that I could pick up any army and do well with it versus that of 6E and later. One of our top placing gents in the very last 'Ard Boyz did so with the FAQ'd Dark Angels (they got proper Stormshields). He was dirty with them, never beat him with my missile/plasma wolves.
Nids were still a little borked, but they had assault after arrival, which made certain units very scary. Fleet hormaguants could also do some hurt and the "crapping dudes for days" was also fearful.
I dunno, rules were simpler, there wasn't all the fake "Forge the Narrative" stuff like challenges, and we could play 2500pt games in 2.5 hours easy. The game was just less complex.
9158
Post by: Hollismason
2nd edition while not the most balanced is still my favorite because that's what I started on.
Oh Glorious Virus Grenade, how I miss you.
47246
Post by: Yonan
Those sound like some relatively simple balance changes. New guard codex fixes most guard problems I'd say (especially vendetta), long fangs get a points increase in some respect, Eldar and Tau could use new dexes too with some toning down. A modified hull points could help reduce the prevalance of mech overall and so on. Just for some rough ideas.
I know we're talking house rules here, but just wondering if it would be the best way to get fun 40k happening using it as a basis rather than just defaulting to modifying the latest edition.
53985
Post by: TheKbob
Yonan wrote:Those sound like some relatively simple balance changes. New guard codex fixes most guard problems I'd say (especially vendetta), long fangs get a points increase in some respect, Eldar and Tau could use new dexes too with some toning down. A modified hull points could help reduce the prevalance of mech overall and so on. Just for some rough ideas.
I know we're talking house rules here, but just wondering if it would be the best way to get fun 40k happening using it as a basis rather than just defaulting to modifying the latest edition.
Things like "Jink" saves didn't exist. Cover was better. You could assault from reserves. NO FLYERS OR FLYING MONSTERS! It was a magical time. Fleet meant you go into combat incredibly fast. Wound allocation would need to be tweaked, as that's what gave the Grey Knights their tricks. You could simply have it that players got to choose to place wounds and on models with multiple wounds, you had to stack them until a model was removed and then move onto the next one.
77256
Post by: SYKOJAK
I voted for 6thend. Despite toning down vehicles. I liked the way Psychic powers worked best in that edition. PlusI like throwing the occasional grenade.
87012
Post by: Toofast
I guess I did speak too soon. However, I did admit that we had much too small of a sampling size to get any kind of consensus at that point. I am still even surprised at 18-20% for 7th. In my local group, I know it would be much higher but on the interwebz, I figured it would be around 10%. That's about the % of people I haven't seen complaining about 7th being a broken pile of trash.
63092
Post by: MarsNZ
Toofast wrote: I figured it would be around 10%. That's about the % of people I haven't seen complaining about 7th being a broken pile of trash.
There are more of us, many of whom have abandoned forums like this due to the extremely vocal minority who will rubbish everything constantly. The same people who rubbished 6E are still around to rubbish 7E.
85156
Post by: Mysterious Pants
2nd. Love 2nd. The bright miniatures, the fresh aesthetic, the awesome.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
Favorite era? That is tough to narrow down by single edition of the rules.
I mean, 3rd & 4th ed GW was still doing a lot of things right like summer campaigns, tournament prize support, bitz service and steadily improving rules.
GW stopped most of that by or during 5th ed. But 5th, arguably, had the best core rules out of all of the editions. The rules were stream-lined, which allowed for fast games.
3rd and 4th ed rules had some real issues like conflicting rules between terrain and area terrain. The abstracted terrain levels vs los rules created in game arguments that were the reason for GW rightly moving to tlos in 5th ed.(In 4th an opponent could walk right up to a solid 2+ story wall and flamer your models because of the default area terrain rules)
Also, 4th's vehicle damage table made anything not av 14 just perish too easily. There were other issues that slowed the game down but I'll leave off here.
The only faults with the 5th ed core rules were the wound allocation system, coversaves that were 1 point to good, limited mission selection/scope and overly simplistic victory conditions(Kill Points).
5th ed.'s minor issues would have been fixed by:
a)switching to 4th eds wound allocation,
b)dropping cover from 4+ or less every where to 5+ or less (or just do away with cover saves in favor of to hit modifiers)
c) expanded mission & deployment choices
and
d)A return to the pre-5th ed Victory Points system or something like the NOVA rules that were developed to fix 5th's KP problem.
Any major flaws in 5th edition were introduced via codex.
5th ed became vehicle heavy because GW focused on Imperial factions and dropped vehicle costs in those books. Rhinos dropping from 60-ish pts to 35-ish pts, IG vehicle squadron rules and 25% points reduction on the Chimeras "created" the vehicle heavy meta for 5th ed.
The later part of 5th ed saw dramatic power escalation in the codices as they were being written to overcome the super cheap vehicles and also with an eye towards the approaching over powered mess that was to be 6th ed.
So, which is it? 3rd and 4th where GW were still actively involved with building and maintaining the 40k player community? or is it 5th where GW stopped providing any real after sales product support but did have its best core rule set?
I voted 5th because of the rules and that the community was still strong, despite GW abdicating their community leader position via cost cutting (profit margin) decision. 4th was probably the best overal time for the community though.
Later,
ff
68289
Post by: Nem
Yeah 5th ed would really benefit from a objective system rather than just KP, though prefer wound allocations from 6/7th, having to actually think about model placement etc.
Then again, bit biased as I think Tac objectives and forcing people to adopt new strategies every turn (Rather than just Stand. Shoot.) is the best thing since sliced bread.
I voted 7th, of course there are rules I dislike in it, but far less than other editions. As for the openness of the army selection I've yet to encounter a issue.
81025
Post by: koooaei
I've started playing in 5-th and haven't played earlier editions, so won't vote. But can definitely tell that out of 5, 6,7 the 6-th was the worst one. I liked 5-th for footslogging hoards but vehicle spam was a bit over the top and there were such insane codexes like space wolves, blood angels that felt like C: SM +1. And GK that were over the top either. But as apeared, it was way better than 6-th ed stuff like eldar and tau.
7-th ed is basically the same as 6-th but the great thing that happened is maelstorm missions. SDomeone argues that they're random and bad but they really do inspire to play the mission other than "run around for 5 turns and than turboboost 48' to get the points" and "ignore movement phase, sit there and shoot stuff to death" approach so common in 5 and 6.
77605
Post by: KTG17
Wow can't believe how popular 5th is. I dont know anything about it as I never bought the set, and was on 40k hiatus during that time.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
KTG17 wrote:Wow can't believe how popular 5th is. I dont know anything about it as I never bought the set, and was on 40k hiatus during that time.
Like people have said, 5th was the edition that came closer to truly offer a balanced play experience and as such was the edition that was most friendly to PUGs and tournament games alike.
It probably also helps that since it was the edition released before the clusterfeth that are 6th and 7th, some people might also be a bit influenced by nostalgia of a time where the game wasn't just completely unfun to play.
13022
Post by: Locclo
I have to say it's a cross between 5th and 7th. I think my most memorable games were during 5th Edition, but I also think that that was largely due to my FLGS having an awesome league organizer who came up with crazy, interesting missions each week to simulate how actual battles would take place, such as both sides fighting in a dense fog/mist, or a column of tanks being ambushed by the enemy.
Honestly, I think 6th/7th have a great balance of making things a little deadlier and a little less survivable, which makes the game much more fun and interesting. One issue I had with 5th, looking back, is that vehicles were nigh-on invincible, since glancing them to death was an effort in futility, and only two results on the table were "destroyed". Imperial Guard were incredibly powerful in 5th because of those vehicle rules (and a well-designed codex, to be fair). Plus, everyone and their mother had a 4+ cover save almost at all times, so a lot of games wound up being "I shoot, one guy dies, you shoot, two guys die," and not much is dead at the end of the game. I love that 6th/7th kind of put everyone at risk, with vehicles becoming more flimsy and cover getting reduced overall to 5+ instead of 4+.
Oh, and I love Maelstrom of War missions, they're a ton of fun to play. 
So, all things considered, I'd have to go with 7th in terms of rules.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
Given that it is 16 years since 2nd ed was retired I'm amazed that so many people still think of it as the best edition (which of course it is).
4820
Post by: Ailaros
I also said 5th. Mostly because things felt the cleanest, especially in the period before Mat Ward started pooping on stuff. It was the tightest version of its way of doing the rules, and things were (relatively - I know, it's still 40k) simple while still offering a bunch of content.
I did actually like 6th, and it comes in a close second. The main failing with 6th is that for every great thing they added, they also added something wonky or confusing, or just crummy. 4th was also okay, as noted in part because of the different way GW did publications, but during 4th edition you were stuck playing with 4th edition... There are a few gems (wound allocation and terrain being the best of any edition I've played), but it was weighed down by so much junk that hadn't yet become refined by 5th edition yet.
I dont' actually have much experience with 7th, though, but I bet it will give 5th a more serious run for its money once I can plow in more seriously. It seems like they kept much of the flavor they added in 6th while "service packing" the rules to clear up some of the worst awfulness of the stuff they broke.
Assuming the trend continues, I imagine 8th will actually be pretty good when it comes out several years from now. Of course, that doesn't mean I'm going to sit out 7th while I wait.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Haven't played enough 7th to offer an opinion on that, but imo 6th edition slightly edges out 5th edition for me.
Dunno. There's a lot of dumb gak in the 6th edition, but I think that a lot of it had more to do with the armies themselves- example being things like 2+ re-rollable saves. That's not really a "6th edition" problem so much as it's a problem with the codices that that give the right cobmination of rules to a unit to allow that to happen. Though, I will say that at least from a balance perspective, allies really hurt more than help.
By comparison, idk if 5th was more "balanced" than 6th or not, but it was a hell of a lot more boring. I'd take whatever 6th edition was over 5th edition's "metal box-hammer40K'. Almost every army that has a troop transport spammed them in competitive lists- implying that the problem was with the edition rules.
So, so very boring. Boring to play, boring to watch. I miss the old vehicle durability, though.
EDIT- On second thought, screw all of that. I pick 5th edition. Box-Hammer40K may have been boring as hell, but god damn I hate fething flyers and every rule that came with them. That alone kills 6th for me. Allies, formations and all the other FOC-raping shenanigans combined with the "super kewl randomness" in everything compounds those issues.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
Fifth. It was far from perfect but it feels like 6th was the threshold when everything went out of control. The introduction of divination, seerstars, flyers etc. changed the game forever, and I am not convinced the change was positive.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
BlaxicanX wrote:I'd take whatever 6th edition was over 5th edition's "metal box-hammer40K'. Almost every army that has a troop transport spammed them in competitive lists- implying that the problem was with the edition rules.
To be fair, guard players still put everything in boxes now, and eldar usually put everything in boxes before.
I think the main reason 6th edition felt less mech gunline was because tau dominated 2/3ds of the edition, and they don't use transports, and demons also came out and were a huge deal, and they don't even have transports. You look at what else came out - DA and CSM, and rhinos have been pretty crappy for awhile now (though even then, they're still sometimes used).
I think one of the reasons 5th edition appeared like boxhammer was because 5th ed had a guard codex land in the middle that made it so that everyone could take a chimera, and they dropped in new grey knights, with psy-ammo razorbacks, and they added BA with everything's-fast vehicles, and they redid necron so that they had transports AT ALL.
Now, I'd agree that 5th ed rules did heavily favor mech gunlines, so as new codices had the option to play that way, they did, which is why we saw more. They did basically nothing at all to change that in 6th edition though (hullpoints aren't even really a nerf when you consider the loss of the glancing table, and they gained a bunch of other stuff as well). I think 6th ed would have been more boxhammer were it not for other factors.
BlaxicanX wrote: Box-Hammer40K may have been boring as hell, but god damn I hate fething flyers and every rule that came with them. That alone kills 6th for me. Allies, formations and all the other FOC-raping shenanigans combined with the "super kewl randomness" in everything compounds those issues.
Right?
6th ed really did add in a bunch of interesting things, but it was spoiled by all the annoying things they added. It's like 4th ed in that regard. You could go back and play a game with great terrain and wound allocation rules, and that had a closer balance between shooting and assault... but then you'd be playing with old consolidation rules and old SMF and old reserves rules and old missions...
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Is it possible to say "I don't know"?
2nd Ed was a complete blast, but the rules weren't very good for the scale of the game. Far better suited to a 10-12 model Necromunda game than a 10-12 unit 40K army. I adore 2nd Ed, but I acknowledge its flaws.
3rd Ed was a great deal of fun, I loved playing it, loved making lists, playing everything from competitive to casual narrative games, loved Apoc (as long as you didn't play it competitively). But, again, I acknowledge the serious flaws that game exhibits.
4th was so boring I skipped it.
5th I skipped as well.
6th brought me back even if there were some large caveats (wound allocation and hull points). But even that turned into a mess by the end, and the introduction of flyers was, IMO, handled poorly.
7th? Don't make me laugh.
My fav edition of 40K was the one we wrote ourselves after 4th Ed came out. Took the best of both worlds, stuck in a little bit of 2nd, and was better for it.
78925
Post by: Sir Arun
I dont think Apoc was around back in the days of 3rd ed
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
I think each edition has had some major critical faults, and as much as I have a hard time believing myself saying this, I think the best edition, mechanically, was 5th.
5th had some things I absolutely despised, such as Kill Points (oh look, that squad of Grots and that empty Trukk were worth twice as much as killing Calgar and his Land Raider!) which we still unfortunately have kicking around in places, vehicle shooting rules (oh man you moved? guess your 7 crew battle tank with 5 guns gets to shoot just one gun...), and wound allocation (oh you did 9 wounds to my Nobz unit? that's cute, they're all still alive).
However, overall, aside from that, it was probably the easiest to "pick up and play", and probably had the least imbalanced core rules aside from the issues above, most problems were more problems with the army codex than with the core rules.
I like some of the places 6E and 7E went with some things, but they're much less friendly for just picking up a game on relatively common ground, and are far more open to abuse in terms of what you can bring to the table, and the mission/objective structure is a mess, and Hull Points are probably one of the most daft hybridization mechanics that GW has ever thought of. They try to too hard to get too much detail from forces and units that really should be too large to care about such things. 6E's missions with very powerful Nightfight every single game didn't help either.
There was some stuff I liked about 4th, but between the absurd imbalance between tracked tanks and skimmer tanks and the ludicrous ease with which tracked tanks could be killed (along with the utter pointlessness of tracked transports), the ease with which assault armies could dominate a game and face very little fire at all (2" area terrain completely blocking LoS, consolidations into new combats, etc), independent characters being unable to be targeted unless they were the closest units (and on their own) by shooting, along with target priority tests and whatnot, it made the game very stilted towards armies composed of elite CC units.
My "perfect" edition, if one could call it that, would be 5th ed with 4E wound allocation, 6/7E vehicle shooting rules, 3E/4E victory points rules, and 6E's cover save rules, and maybe a couple of other things would make a really solid 40k ruleset I think.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
I have not played 7th Ed as yet
I enjoyed 6th ed games and the general rules system a lot - the issue I had was with the balance of certain units / combos- Cheese Serpents, Riptides and a few others.
75727
Post by: sing your life
I prefer 6th. 7th was a bit rubbish, mainly due to having to buy £50 rulebooks 2 years after buying the last £50 rulebook but also because of a number of highly exploitative rules.
86810
Post by: PhillyT
I like 7th. 5th was the most balanced and clean.
49999
Post by: Frozen Ocean
Like many here, it's 5th for me. I liked 6th the moment I read the rulebook, but the problem isn't there. The problems with 6th were the armies, and the downward spiral into insanity that followed.
I got in to 40k at the very, very end of 4th, so 5th was my real introduction to the game. I don't know how much of my appreciation for the edition is because of how it felt then, but seeing the poll results makes me think that it's not very much. Back then, the game was a relative mystery. I felt like most units in my army (Tyranids) were worthwhile, and that I genuinely had to build my lists carefully considering what units to take based on what roles they fulfilled. Things have changed now, and not just because I've learned the reality of things. I miss the relevance of close combat. I miss purchasing my psychic powers.
I like 7th, and 6th was almost the same. I like flyers (this may have something to do with the fact that I have always held a passion for aircraft; as a child I aspired to be in the RAF). What I abhor are random tables, especially random psychic powers (especially especially when they are unfairly distributed; see Tyranids). I love the big models like the Knight and Wraithknight, and the idea of Lords of War. As a Chaos player, I much approve of the change to Challenges. The hoarding of all assets (IG) by the Imperium on the Allies Chart, though...
I've yet to play a Maelstrom mission, but I hear almost entirely positive things about it (really the biggest criticism being the impossible objectives, such as kill an enemy psyker when there are no enemy psykers).
In short, I don't find 7th to be the best because I liked 5th more. However, this does not at all mean that I dislike 7th. I also don't hold 6th responsible for what happened to my Tyranids.
34243
Post by: Blacksails
Started in 5th and enjoyed it then.
Didn't like many of the changes 6th brought.
Dislike even more the changes 7th brought.
I voted 5th. The core rules were the cleanest, and the fluff at the time was still solid.
18080
Post by: Anpu42
Well I voted 7th even though I have not gotten to play with it yet.
Rouge Trader: Was a blast and I had fun the few times I got to play it. Mostly because most of my gaming group was only interested in D&D and nothing else. I loved the dynamic nature of the game and the fact you could do anything you wanted. [I even made a AT-AT out a Markova to represent an old BattleMech design I liked using.[
2nd Edition: This and was also a blast and I got games in because of the local Tournament Scene. [My highlight was I had a single Grot Model kill off 3 Khorne Berserkers in Melee, two by himself.]
3rd Edition: I got a few games in, but don't remember much of it other than...well nothing really good comes to mind [I did gain a Pass at a local Tournament because a guy refused to play me Primer Grey Space Wolves because they were not Space Wolf Grey, but that might have been in second]
4th Edition: Nothing good came out of this edition, not because of the rules, but the players. [I had an Eldar Player table me on turn two with the New 4th Edition Codex and some BS moves in a practice game. When I asked for a rematch he told me "I don't Practice and you should play better, come back when you are Good!"]
5th Edition: I must admit I had the most fun with because I got the most games in after finding a better group. [This is when I went from WAAC to a fluffy casual gamer after a fist fight almost broke out at a Tournament.]
6th Edition: I loved 6th, it fit my play style and it started to get more dynamic. [My only problem was we lost half our group when 6th came out before the book was released. "This is just GW trying to get more of my $$$ and nothing will ever be fixed" was there reason. I think it was them not liking change.]
7th Edition: Like I stated I have not gotten to play it, but to me is has that old Rouge Trader/2nd Edition feel to it. I am going to have to change how I play a little (I am big on Gunlines). It looks like there will be a lot of maneuvering and risk taking to win a game. As far as the randomness, a lot of that can be removed by both player deciding just not dealing with "All" of the random charts. As soon as RL gets out of my way I think 7th is going to be a blast.
84919
Post by: Gwaihirsbrother
I picked fourth.
I started in third and liked it well enough, but didn't play enough to get any strong impressions about it.
Fourth is the edition I played the most and loved almost everything about that edition, other than my poor Dark Eldar's codex being so outdated.
Fifth was ok but I did not like the change to the cover rules at all. Fourth cover rules were much better. I also felt that fifth did things to take away uniqueness of some armies like equalizing speed more amongst the armies. Eldar, nids and to a lesser extent orks should be faster and shine if that was lost.
Stopped playing during fifth, but kept an eye on the game. Sixth looked to me to be a disaster in terms of it having potential to be a game I would want to play which is too bad because new wraithguard options greatly interest me (played a lot of Iyanden in fourth/fifth). Flyers are something I have absolutely no interest in having as part of a standard game 2000 points and below. Same goes for knights and the like. They were just putting way too much into the core game instead of leaving it as ancillary options.
Seventh doesn't fix my biggest concerns in sixth so no interest in starting to play again with those rules.
Best game for me would be fourth with some tweaks borrowed from other editions.
53939
Post by: vipoid
Has to be 5th for me.
I started near the end of 3rd, but I don't remember much of 3rd or 4th. Possibly I didn't play as many games of them, or I just didn't have much to compare them to.
Anyway, 5th just had the most stuff that I liked - it was built around some very solid core rules, the randomness was pretty limited and assault elements had a reasonable place (even if they were second to shooting).
It did have its problems - Wound Allocation was a pain (though pretty rarely, as I recall), Vehicles were a bit too hard to destroy, TLoS seems like a step backwards. Also, it suffered a bit from power creep, which was unfortunate.
6th edition brought about a ton of changes, virtually none of which i liked. I appreciate Hull Points... that's about it. Fliers can sod off and die, snapshots can come back when they're a BS modifier, and the best way to improve the random tables would be to set them on fire. Also, did you want your assault units to have some impact on a game? Well enjoy random charge range, overwatch, and casualties removed from the front. Oh, and all your power weapons have been made worse. Good luck.
Also, the wound allocation really doesn't feel like an improvement over 5th. With all the extra crap they're adding, I'd really rather not have to constantly micro-manage the position of every model in every squad as well. And, whilst it solved 5th's problem, it then replaced it with an even stupider one. Do you have a resilient character? Just stick him at the front of a squad and watch as he soaks up all the wounds - even ones from flamers and blasts. Oh, and if there's a weapon that might actually put him in danger, just LoS it - because every squad member telepathically knows which of the hundreds of incoming shots he needs to intercept.
7th. Are your games going too quickly? Well, enjoy wasting an extra 5-10 minutes each turn on a completely unnecessary psychic phase as we try to turn this game into Fantasy-40k. Plus, did we hear requests for more randomness? No? Well, have more randomness anyway! Look, with our new mission system, even victory points are random!
Oh, and were you concerned that allies were unbalancing the game? Well, not to worry, now you can use anything and everything you want! That ought to balance everything out, right? Well, regardless, enjoy paying full price for an errata's worth of editions to your 6th edition rulebooks.
78925
Post by: Sir Arun
What I find surprising is how 6th edition is even less popular than 7th.
How's that, people? In 6th you had the last semblance of oldskool balance left before 7th threw all that out the window.
IMO 6th was still the last "old era" edition before 7th started a whole new generation and concept of 40k play.
53985
Post by: TheKbob
I wonder if this little free piece of market research will weasel it's way back to the GW HQ? People always say you can't please everyone in defense of 6E and 7E, but it seems like the previous vein of the game, 3E through 5E, has a much bigger pool of fans associated with it.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
 Sir Arun wrote:What I find surprising is how 6th edition is even less popular than 7th.
How's that, people? In 6th you had the last semblance of oldskool balance left before 7th threw all that out the window.
IMO 6th was still the last "old era" edition before 7th started a whole new generation and concept of 40k play.
I think most people who prefer 6th to 7th also didn't really like 6th and so voted for one of the earlier editions.
78925
Post by: Sir Arun
IMO 4th edition could be seen as a better ruleset than 5th, but OTOH 5th is closer to the present, so most armies had nicer, shinier units and codexes than during the 4th ed era. (I'm looking at you, Dark Eldar! Same goes for Orks)
So if we remove Matt Ward out of the equation, by the end of 5th, had GKs and Necrons been rebalanced a little but, and had GW released SoB instead of moving on to 6th, I think for the first time ever, we would have had a balanced, self-contained edition where all armies had been updated (yes, it was a mixture of 4th edition and 5th edition codices for most armies, but you couldnt physically differentiate between the codices unless you knew about their release date).
Now, however, we once again CAN differentiate between 6th ed and 7th ed codices, even though they are both the same hardback 105 page format - 7th has no armylist section and no unit artwork, but pwetty pictures ._.
53985
Post by: TheKbob
Sir Arun wrote:
So if we remove Matt Ward out of the equation, by the end of 5th, had GKs and Necrons been rebalanced a little but, and had GW released SoB instead of moving on to 6th, I think for the first time ever, we would have had a balanced, self-contained edition where all armies had been updated (yes, it was a mixture of 4th edition and 5th edition codices for most armies, but you couldnt physically differentiate between the codices unless you knew about their release date).
Now, however, we once again CAN differentiate between 6th ed and 7th ed codices, even though they are both the same hardback 105 page format - 7th has no armylist section and no unit artwork, but pwetty pictures ._.
Fluff aside, Mat Ward is actually one of their better rules writers. As much flak as he gets for Grey Knights, that codex and the Necrons are still solid books across three game editions. He wrote powerful characters, but points costed them appropriately for the most part. His books contain very few "eh, maybe never" units. So if Ward had written the 'Crons and GK for a 5E ruleset versus the 6E style, I feel like you'd have the closest to perfect edition possible. It was the units designed with 6E in mind, mainly the Paladin-star, that made 5E bad at the end. Once you saw them work in the new rules framework, they snapped back into "powerful, but not OP" mode. I enjoyed my Draigowing in 6E a lot. They still crushed people on their first fight, but I could see players get savvy fighting them a second and third time.
So I say +1 for Mat Ward. His books have stood the test of time unlike many others.
81197
Post by: BaalSNAFU
Sir Arun wrote:What I find surprising is how 6th edition is even less popular than 7th.
How's that, people? In 6th you had the last semblance of oldskool balance left before 7th threw all that out the window.
IMO 6th was still the last "old era" edition before 7th started a whole new generation and concept of 40k play.
bs. 6th was a horrid mash of what *should* have been experimental rules, shoddily implemented. On top of that it was play spamhammer or verdunhamner (gunlines) or don't bother actually getting out your models. 7th cleaned up a lot of the trial and error crap. Yea there is a lot more randomness, no I don't like that either, but at least most of its optional.
75727
Post by: sing your life
Why do you like 7th edition?
4820
Post by: Ailaros
Hah, you want to see something neat? Look at the results of this poll and compare it to the results of the poll of the edition people started playing 40k in:
This implies a few possible things. One of them could mean that people don't actually have a bias towards the edition they started in.
But if we assume that there is a bias, then that really tells you a lot about the quality of the edition. About as many people started 3rd, 4th, and 5th, but very few people selected 3rd edition as their favorite. That means that 3rd edition was worse than 5th edition by at least as much as however much bias we're assuming.
And even if we don't, the first graph gives us valuable information into the second. One could make the argument, for example, that rogue trader is scoring lower because it's older, and so fewer people played it. That's incorrect, though, because of the people who played rogue trader (we know because they said they started then), 88% of them then went on to vote for some other edition as being the best.
Meanwhile, correcting for the differentiation of gross numbers (only 5/6ths of the people voted in the first poll as the second), we can see that of those people who played at least one edition of 40k before 5th edition came out, half of them would still go back and play 5th edition or later, rather than go back to an earlier edition.
53985
Post by: TheKbob
 Ailaros wrote:Hah, you want to see something neat? Look at the results of this poll and compare it to the results of the poll of the edition people started playing 40k in:
This implies a few possible things. One of them could mean that people don't actually have a bias towards the edition they started in.
But if we assume that there is a bias, then that really tells you a lot about the quality of the edition. About as many people started 3rd, 4th, and 5th, but very few people selected 3rd edition as their favorite. That means that 3rd edition was worse than 5th edition by at least as much as however much bias we're assuming.
And even if we don't, the first graph gives us valuable information into the second. One could make the argument, for example, that rogue trader is scoring lower because it's older, and so fewer people played it. That's incorrect, though, because of the people who played rogue trader (we know because they said they started then), 88% of them then went on to vote for some other edition as being the best.
That's a good comparison, but it would seem that one could also conclude that the game was gaining momentum from 3E through 5E and is losing it in the later editions. Or one could surmise that of course you start playing the game in the edition you like the most. Why would you pay to start playing a game you didn't like as a better way of putting it.
9158
Post by: Hollismason
That's not how statistics or studies work. You'd be correct if the same people answered both questions.
53985
Post by: TheKbob
Hollismason wrote:That's not how statistics or studies work. You'd be correct if the same people answered both questions.
This is as close to scientific study as we get. We can take a guess that there is overlap just by comparing the posters between the two threads. We will never get a statistical consensus on the matter (and does it really warrant one outside of GW having a financial interest?). But it certainly paints a picture for which we can couch conjecture and have some fun.
I would say the other data sets we have on how the player base for 40k is shrinking along with sales that correlates to this and draw some reasonable hypothesis. Nothing more.
9969
Post by: Daedleh
 TheKbob wrote:Hollismason wrote:That's not how statistics or studies work. You'd be correct if the same people answered both questions.
This is as close to scientific study as we get. We can take a guess that there is overlap just by comparing the posters between the two threads. We will never get a statistical consensus on the matter (and does it really warrant one outside of GW having a financial interest?). But it certainly paints a picture for which we can couch conjecture and have some fun.
I would say the other data sets we have on how the player base for 40k is shrinking along with sales that correlates to this and draw some reasonable hypothesis. Nothing more.
It's about as much a scientific statistical study as Ian Duncan Smiths track record on statistics. If you want to make any sort of sense then you should really create a questionnaire where you can cross-reference participents between the questions.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
Oh, it can definitely be MUCH more rigorous, of course.
That said, it's still data. Sloppy, but still pointing to trends.
9969
Post by: Daedleh
This is something I quickly knocked together which would give a much better data pool:
http://kwiksurveys.com/app/rendersurvey.asp?sid=is5ahib2fz9hoy8396253&refer=
Thoughts?
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Assuming you can get enough people to take it, I got bored about a third the way in and stopped
18080
Post by: Anpu42
Sir Arun wrote:What I find surprising is how 6th edition is even less popular than 7th.
How's that, people? In 6th you had the last semblance of oldskool balance left before 7th threw all that out the window.
IMO 6th was still the last "old era" edition before 7th started a whole new generation and concept of 40k play.
I think [this my opinion] that more people like 7th over 6th is just the flexibility. Balance for our group come in lower on our priority than Fluff or just the ability to play what we want.
One of our players has one SoB Squad that he can now just attach to his Marines that have always been part of the Fluff for his Home Brew Chapter or play an all Dreadnaught army.
Unbound lets us do that without issue.
At least that is how the group I play with feels.
30508
Post by: Captain Avatar
 Anpu42 wrote:
I think [this my opinion] that more people like 7th over 6th is just the flexibility. Balance for our group come in lower on our priority than Fluff or just the ability to play what we want.
One of our players has one SoB Squad that he can now just attach to his Marines that have always been part of the Fluff for his Home Brew Chapter or play an all Dreadnaught army.
Unbound lets us do that without issue.
At least that is how the group I play with feels.
Not trying to be nasty here and please npte that this is also"purely my opinion".
7th and 6th are for all intents and purposes the same. There really isn't enough difference for there to be the difference shown by the poll.
While there are some whom truly enjoy the non-game activity that 40k currently is, I believe that there are others who just want to play with their models.
Imo, in such instances, it is a case of the "Sliding Baseline Effect". A case where GW lowered the bar for what was acceptable in 6th and then doubled down on it for 7th.
By doubling down on the mess that was 6th ed GW knows that a portion of the playerbase will lose hope and become resigned to the game as it is. Basically GW's attitude is that we will knuckle under and just accept the new status quo.
I feel that this is observable in this thread where some of the posters have noted that they grudgingly picked 7th because it was a little better than 6th.
I've also noted that some seem to think that the poll numbers are some for of consensus that 7th is a success.
From past polls I'd say that this is not the case. Usually a new release beats any previous release in polls like this.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
This poll implies that you can't see it as a two-player strategy game without sacrificing narrative.
:|
Still, I filled it in.
18410
Post by: filbert
I like 3rd, i have a fond recollection for it and I remember enjoying it immensely. It also has the benefit of having a complete set of updated codexes released for it. I do acknowledge that there were some quite serious rules flaws with it, even for a casual gamer like me so I think if i were to make the choice about choosing an edition to play now, it would probably be 4th or 5th.
69226
Post by: Selym
For me it's 5th, without question.
I started at the end of 4th, which was fun (if a little more wacky than I liked, but it had a nice comforting feel to it), then I properly got in to 40k with 5th.
5th was a time in which Daemon Princes were played with pride, Battlecannons were the most badass guns around, you could bring a knife to a gunfight and still expect to come out on top, and Mattard hadn't massacred the fluff (much). There were some parts of 5th that irked me at the time (all my fights were against tanks, and one of my early purchases was a LRC), but for the most part the game was straightforward and fun.
Then 6th hit, and basically turned my armies to mush, and then proceeded to kick mud in my face with each new release.
And 7th has pissed me off.
54729
Post by: AegisGrimm
I voted 2nd edition, as I still love the extra detail when dealing with skirmish-sized games, and because it's my first love. Hard to beat that just for pure nostalgia's sake. I will totally agree that it falls apart when the points go above 2,000, though.
50138
Post by: Savageconvoy
I came in on 5th ed some time before the Dark Eldar update but don't remember exactly how far in. I also played Tau, but remember it as being a far fairer and more diverse meta than what we see now.
6th I don't think had that many problems outside of FMC and Flyers being a bit too durable. Things like random spells and warlord traits were an annoyance and really more of a sign of what was to come. The updates in the time were insane for balance issues (I have never seen mutilators once and don't see DA used anymore). The ally rules needed work but were actually fun, but battle brothers seemed a bit too abusive.
7th fixed FMC and Taudar. By fixed Taudar I mean that it limited Battle Brother abuse to Imperial forces only, so it's good they get to run rampant with battle brother and no xenos army for some reason. The maelstrom missions are honestly a mess and I can't see how people actually enjoy that system. Psykers are a mix this edition. I have seen 4 games with GKs and for the most part the other side was completely shut down and too many spells were being cast to really have any effect with countering. I've yet to see the deamon factory list, and probably won't. This is probably the edition that broke my interest in the game.
31121
Post by: amanita
I started in 3rd and voted 4th. 5th was very similar to 4th but dumbed down the vehicle damage tables, introduced TLOS which ruined a great part of tactical movement and also had the hideous wound allocation system. 6th and 7th are merely forgettable abominations of randomized bs mixed with excessive clutter. Bon apetite!
79398
Post by: jamesk1973
5th for me. 76 games in one year.
6th...I played two games.
7th I haven't been to my local GW since it dropped.
48017
Post by: Banzaimash
I think that although 5th is the best edition so far, 4th was my favourite. This may have something to do with the fact that 4th was harsh to vehicles and favoured assault , and considering I play foot assault lists this suited my armies nicely. But other things, like no pre-measuring, terrain levels and not being able to target models who were deep in terrain, they were things I enjoyed for some reason. Or actually being able to do something to vehicles with missiles.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Now with a few more games under my belt, definitely 4th again. No premeasurement and no TLoS along with no wound pools speed the game up a LOT and make it a much more enjoyable overall experience.
65463
Post by: Herzlos
For the skirmish scale it was intended for I preferred 2nd edition, with its wargear, grenade throwing and so on.
For the larger battle stuff, I preferred 6th edition; it was fairly clean and streamlined, and I liked the uncertainty with assaults. I've never played using/against LoW, Escalation, Fliers or Fortifications though, so they aren't factored in. I don't like the complete disregard for balance in 7th Ed.
I didn't have any real problem with 4th or 5th Ed either, but didn't like the change going from 2nd -> 3rd since it seemed to lose a lot of depth.
18698
Post by: kronk
I had a lot of fun with 5th.
6th was OK.
I don't like LoW in 7th.
78065
Post by: SkavenLord
I'd say 5th or early 6th for me. 5th for nostalgia value and (at least to me) it didn't feel very unbalanced.
When 6th came, the rules I thought felt more complex (something I love in tabletop games), and had some new rules I found pretty fun (purchase fortifications in army list, psyker disciplines, etc.)
Late 6th felt a little sour to me though, considering I thought they made Tyranids more or less unplayable (or wouldn't play well with my play style). Learning and realizing the power creep wasn't very good to my perspective either.
66275
Post by: Random Dude
I can't vote objectively because I've played only 7th edition games (I thought about getting in since 5th, but wasn't able to stomach the prices, then prices went up ). I've heard 5th was parking lot 40k though.
34243
Post by: Blacksails
It ended up becoming that way because the core rules had far more survivable vehicles, coupled with codices that had cheap, effective transports and tanks that were better than foot slogging equivalents.
The rule set itself was a lot cleaner, almost purely because of the unit by unit treatment instead of the model by model rules we have currently.
But yes, vehicles were probably one of the worst parts (or best if you were Guard) of 5th, as well as wound allocation shenanigans in multi-wound models.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Vehicles in and of themselves weren't a huge problem in 5th, in fact 5th was the only edition where they were universally useful for all races and the only edition where the skimmer/tracked tank gap didn't exist.
The problem was a few super cheap transports. It also didn't help that infantry equivalents also were painfully overcosted and/or were absurdly easy to get rid of, especially for IG.
Nobody complained about Predators, Defilers, Land Speeders, Hammerheads, Leman Russ Tanks, Sentinels, Land Raiders, Wave Serpents, Hellhounds, Fire Prisms, Ravagers, Battlewagons, Basilisks, Dreadnoughts, etc in 5th.
It is interesting to see how heavily 5th is favored in this poll however.
84919
Post by: Gwaihirsbrother
Wow, only 25% between 6th and 7th and a whopping 60% for 4th and 5th combined. That is strongly the most popular era it would seem.
54729
Post by: AegisGrimm
Yeah, I have always said that they were "ok" editions, but the general feel of the era made the game more than the rules.
61618
Post by: Desubot
Im surprised about the 5th. honestly was an annoying one for me as a tau player :/ (never won a game of 5th)
61458
Post by: Bakedbeans
I voted for 4th edition, it was the edition that I played the most (at least a game a month).
Started with small games with proxies in 2nd, in my buddies basement.
Seriously started playing in the tail end of 3rd (maybe three or four games played)
Played 6 or 7 games in 5th.
Never played 6th.
And I have not even purchased the 7th edition book.
61417
Post by: Tommie Soule
7th for me. I am surprised about how cool the objectives cards are. They level the playing field in a fun and challenging way and demand army versatility.
T
49707
Post by: TheCadreofFi'rios
I remember most of my games were in 5th edition and 6th edition. I've only played 1 7th edition game and it was ok I guess but between 5th and 6th I thought people would choose 6th over 5th, I'm surprised by that. Maybe it was the introduction of allies that people didn't like. Anyways I LOVED 6th edition. It was great gameplay, rule changes, interestingly new techniques and tactics, and desperately needed codex updates.
61417
Post by: Tommie Soule
Also with 7th there is no "can't"
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Sure there is, as the pole itself shows, a very large number of people can't stand that edition.
55709
Post by: 60mm
Sure there is. With 7th you can't play balanced games without houseruling the bejesus out of it..
Toofast wrote: I voted for 7th because it can be whatever you want it to be.
Like a balanced pickup game?
61618
Post by: Desubot
 60mm wrote:
Sure there is. With 7th you can't play balanced games without houseruling the bejesus out of it..
You totally can
Its called identical lists
102
Post by: Jayden63
Fourth edition for me. I started with third and felt that natural maturation to 4th was very well done. I enjoyed the tactical flexability that the game offered. I like the terrain rules and actually thought that target priority was an awesome rule as it actually added an element to the game that made LD stats matter.
Escalation was also good, in that it forced you to think how 1/3 of all your games are going to start heavy in reserves.
Yeah there was some OTT wargear out there in a few codexs that made a bit of a sore spot in peoples hearts but as for the basic rule set, I felt it worked very well and was enjoyable.
Heck I even didn't mind entangled, I still used transports and so did most everyone I played against. You just remembered to place your models behind the wrecked vehicle that often offered blocked LOS.
66089
Post by: Kangodo
I almost started a new thread, but I thought it might be better to ask it here! In a month I am going to play Apocalypse with 6 other players. Four of them haven't played 7th and we have three rulebooks. I am certainly able to explain the biggest differences, but I am curious if anyone might have a summary of all the rules that are either new or changed. We once made such a list for 5th > 6th because the majority of our group kept using rules from 5th edition. Something like: -Charging through Difficult Terrain -Jink before rolling to-hit. -Vehicle Damage Table. -etc, etc. I've been looking for over an hour and all I can find are blogs where people giving their opinions. And "vehicles are buffed" or "The new XX-change sucks!" isn't really helping. Such a list might be a great tool to have a quick reference guide so people don't accidentely use rules from 6th edition. The best I could find so far was from dakkadakka: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/596657.page But it has too many opinions which I don't care about and it lacks certain changes. Another good start might be: http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2014/05/22/network-news-7th-edition-telling/ Or would it be best if I create a new thread and keep the first post updated; thoughts?
81246
Post by: Ventiscogreen
The op says that all armies were balanced in 4th edition? Tau.
10842
Post by: djphranq
Started with 4th... mostly played 5th... touched a smidgen of 6th... fell in love with 2nd...
There's something wicked awesome about 2nd ed.
I have yet to try out 7th but from what I'm reading I like it so far.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Yeah, there was never an edition where all armies were balanced. Tau, Eldar and Necrons were ace in 4th, while IG were, well, not taken particularly seriously to put it kindly.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
And even then, for as much as tau players liked to whine about themselves, I recall through the entirety of 5th edition an army that had a practically indestructible pile of TL S10 Ap1 at their disposal, back when both of those things meant more than they do now. Not to mention deepstrike+MSM melta/no-burn plasma.
Tau gave me nearly as much trouble in 5th ed as it did in 4th.
87012
Post by: Toofast
60mm wrote:
Sure there is. With 7th you can't play balanced games without houseruling the bejesus out of it..
Toofast wrote: I voted for 7th because it can be whatever you want it to be.
Like a balanced pickup game?
Go grab an off the shelf MTG starter deck and play against someone with a tournament level deck. If you can't play a balanced pick up game against 99% of the armies out there, you need a better list. Unbalanced games are not unique to 40k no matter how much people on dakka try to pretend that is the case.
79456
Post by: Cambonimachine
Gonna have to go with the last edition i played, which was 3/3.5... much simpler time, armies were relatively balanced, assault was WAY more productive, and it was just generally a pleasant experience overall. Also it was when the modular units were introduced... yay no more static clone armies! Ah good times...
82369
Post by: Ruberu
It was a hard choice. I ended up picking 3rd because its what got me into the game. The rules were easy for me to remember, the models looked awesome, the game was fun to play, almost all my fondests memories are from 3rd. I played tournaments, my dad played still and there were plenty of people to play pick up games with. The crowd was far vast back then. We also had more stores to host game days.
5th was the close call for me. 5th ed is when we picked up 40k again after a bit of a break. I did not play at the local stores as much as I once did, by this time I mainly played against my brother and friend.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Toofast wrote:
Go grab an off the shelf MTG starter deck and play against someone with a tournament level deck. If you can't play a balanced pick up game against 99% of the armies out there, you need a better list. Unbalanced games are not unique to 40k no matter how much people on dakka try to pretend that is the case.
Stop comparing a card game to a miniature game, the two have nothing in common.
Also:
If you can't play a balanced pick up game against 99% of the armies out there, you need a better list.
That is the exact opposite of what balance means...
46786
Post by: Capt. Camping
I started with 5th edition. GW only needed to add a few things from 6th to 5th and what an excellent rulebook we will have now.
64821
Post by: Tycho
My breakdown is as follows"
Rogue Trader:
More of a roleplaying game and either needed a GM or two players who were really committed
to playing WITH one another rather than against. Only played a few games of it but it was kind
of a clunky mess.
2nd ed:
This was my favorite as well as the edition I played the most. The boxed set was brilliant and the
rules kept alot of the fun wackiness that was RT while also keeping them playable by two people without the need for a GM. It had balance issues (looking at you virus grenade, and hi Abbadon and your terminator body guards), but it was (imo) the most fun and colorful edition. I remember having a game where my Armorcast Reaver Titan got hit by a shok attack gun. The result was that the grots were hanging off the pilot's head causing the Titan to go out of control. I had also thrown a vortex grenade on the previous turn so on one side of the board you had this swirling vortex template that immediatley destroyed anything it touched (no rolls of any kind and you even removed scenery) and on the other side was a giant titan bouncing around out of control. The turn ended with the "Foot of Mork". A gaint green ectoplasmic foot the descended out of the heavens (the template was actually shaped like a ork foot) and wiped out a Terminator squad. Good times. I haven't had a game that fun in any edition since.
3rd:
Didn't play it. 2nd ed had a ton of faults and needed streamlined but I felt 3rd went too far so I sat it out.
4th:
collected stuff and watched games but didn't play
5th:
Got back in full time. Good quick rule set but I felt like it could have used a little more depth. Probably the most over-all balanced edition.
6th:
was a fun throw-back to 2nd ed and it's what my flgs is primarily still playing (it took us a while to really get it worked out but we are really enjoying it now).
7th:
Still on the fence ...
66275
Post by: Random Dude
I think the sandbox idea of 7th can work really well within a small gaming group as long as your group lays down a few house rules and expectations. My games have been working pretty well with a few general guidlines: 1. No unbound 2. No LoW 3. No more than two CAD 4. No maelstrom (great for fun games not so much competition) 5. We're trying to work out a limit on warp charge dice that would be fair to both sides.
85425
Post by: office_waaagh
I've played since second, and I'll put my vote in for seventh.
Second was a good ruleset for a skirmish game, but got clumsy very quickly as the number of models went up, and it probably had the worst balance of any edition. Also the models were, to be kind, not very nice, suffering badly from the prevalent 80's/90's aesthetic and less advanced production techniques.
Third was a huge game-changer, and probably the best balanced (at least at first), but it seems crude by today's standards. Definitely a good first step in the right direction.
Fourth and fifth were fine but felt like they'd lost a lot of their freshness to me. And vehicles were stupidly overpowered relative to infantry.
Sixth was a breath of fresh air, and rebalanced the game to make shooting as important as melee, as it should be. Introducing flyers, super-heavies, and fortifications expanded the scope of the game enormously and brought it new life.
Seventh has been more of a "6.5", with a lot of clarifications, general tightening up of the rules and rebalancing things that needed it. Also it's been the most fun so far, Maelstrom missions especially. So I'll say that yeah, it's the best edition on that basis alone.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
PhantomViper wrote:Stop comparing a card game to a miniature game, the two have nothing in common.
?
MTG and 40k have a lot in common. They probably have more general similarities than general differences. Just because one uses dice and the other uses cards doesn't mean that they can't both be strategy games with a huge random element and is largely determined by what choices a player makes before they show up to a game (and the existence of meta, and changes over time causing a thriving trading community, and a few ways of doing things being much better than most others. etc. etc. etc.)
office_waaagh wrote:rebalanced the game to make shooting as important as melee, as it should be.
If by "rebalanced" you mean "crucified assault" and "as important" you mean "overwhelmingly dominate", then I totally agree.
5th ed was shooty, nearly exclusively outside of a few armies. Then they heavily nerfed assault...
85425
Post by: office_waaagh
Ailaros wrote:office_waaagh wrote:rebalanced the game to make shooting as important as melee, as it should be.
If by "rebalanced" you mean "crucified assault" and "as important" you mean "overwhelmingly dominate", then I totally agree.
5th ed was shooty, nearly exclusively outside of a few armies. Then they heavily nerfed assault...
That's essentially what I mean. Assault has greater effectiveness by default because you can inflict casualties in your opponent's turn as well as your own, whereas with shooting you only get to inflict casualties half as often. So it needed a bit of tweaking to make shooting a more viable strategy, ie to be able to inflict crippling casualties on a unit and render it combat ineffective without having to assault it, and before it can assault you.
I like the idea of the assault being used as a final measure to clear the remnants of an enemy unit from a fortification or entrenchment rather than as a primary strategy. I'm a longtime ork player mind, so it disadvantages me somewhat, but it also makes the game more tactical and more about maneuver, as well as giving me more options. Assault is still a viable tactic (a Nobz mob can usually be relied upon to clean house) but it needs to be used with a bit more thought. They added Hammer of Wrath, removed "fearless" wounds, and did a few other things that made the assault phase more viable as well, especially against vehicles, so it definitely still has a place and can be quite decisive if one plans one's charges with care and lays the groundwork with firepower first.
But hey, the question was "what is my favourite edition", so it's going to be subjective, and the things I like won't always be the things you like. This is a thing that I like, it makes the game more fun and cinematic for me. If you don't agree and you liked it better when assault was more powerful, then you're not wrong. I just like it better this way.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
Random Dude wrote:I think the sandbox idea of 7th can work really well within a small gaming group as long as your group lays down a few house rules and expectations. My games have been working pretty well with a few general guidlines: 1. No unbound 2. No LoW 3. No more than two CAD 4. No maelstrom (great for fun games not so much competition) 5. We're trying to work out a limit on warp charge dice that would be fair to both sides.
This is the fatal flaw of 7th ed. It pretty much requires the community to break up into a bunch of little cliques.
These cliques then work hard to make the game playable for them.
This creates barriers to pick-up games and to bringing in new players.
It does so via the "this is the way we play" mentality. So either the new guy becomes indoctrinated in a play style that is not his cup of tea or he goes out to try and find another group that better fits his view on the game.
There are reasons that 40k community is disappearing. Those reasons are 6th ed, 7th ed and GW's overall attitude.
office_waaagh wrote:I've played since second, and I'll put my vote in for seventh.
Second was a good ruleset for a skirmish game, but got clumsy very quickly as the number of models went up, and it probably had the worst balance of any edition. Also the models were, to be kind, not very nice, suffering badly from the prevalent 80's/90's aesthetic and less advanced production techniques.
Third was a huge game-changer, and probably the best balanced (at least at first), but it seems crude by today's standards. Definitely a good first step in the right direction.
Fourth and fifth were fine but felt like they'd lost a lot of their freshness to me. And vehicles were stupidly overpowered relative to infantry.
Sixth was a breath of fresh air, and rebalanced the game to make shooting as important as melee, as it should be. Introducing flyers, super-heavies, and fortifications expanded the scope of the game enormously and brought it new life.
Seventh has been more of a "6.5", with a lot of clarifications, general tightening up of the rules and rebalancing things that needed it. Also it's been the most fun so far, Maelstrom missions especially. So I'll say that yeah, it's the best edition on that basis alone.
Agree somewhat with your opinion on 2nd, though I think that you downplayed just how bad the rules were. Remember that certain army who auto lost to the Eldar Harlequins? That as soon as the models hit the table they had to pack up and leave.
3rd? It was a rough draft that needed refinement.
4th? Was better but the interaction between abstracted los and area terrain was a mess. Got models behind a solid wall with no sight holes? No problem, bring up the flamer it's area terrain. ..... wtf, How do you see my guys? ...Don't need to, it's area terrain. ....what?
5th ed? Really balanced. Both shooting and assault. All hope for balance went out the window when GW decided to update pretty much only Imperial factions with an average 40% points reduction.
If Rhino's had stayed closer to their 55-60 point initial cost
If IG had not gotten vehicle squadron rules every where, Valk/Vendettas and Chimera's dropped from their 80-ish points all at the same time 5th ed would not have been Tankhammer.
6th ed ? GW took everything good that Allessio had done and let Ward and Company wipe their buttocks with it.
Their were a few good ideas but none of them were implemented well. As a long time Tau player I hated what GW did with 6th ed and with the Tau Codex. Long time Tau players didn't want a $50 single build auto win codex. We wanted to be updated to 5th ed standards in a balanced manner.
7th ed? As you say it's 6.5. ... And that is not a good thing, imo. For everything from 6th they half-a$$'d fixed (I mean it is tough times for Imperial factions that want to ally   )....they added another game breaking problem.
Personally, I almost believe that 6th & 7th ed are a part of some Machiavellian plan that Tom Kirdy has cooked up to drive the stock price down to a point where he can buy back the majority of shares and take the company out of public trading.
Note, I said almost
Later,
ff
84027
Post by: Josey4u
I agree with 2nd edition as well. I think it had a lot more character. Bring back the days where you had multiple charts for vehicle damage. A lot of the kids playing today have NO idea how neat that was. Right now only a few of them can say theyve been immobilized or had a weapon destroyed. 2 hullpoints later its dead anyway.
OK anyway that was my rant. I just thought 2nd really had the fatansy/space feel
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
Another reason 7th is my least favorite edition, Despite all the "Anything goes!" attitude, you still can't ally Chaos and Imperial Guard or have Chaos Imperial Knights.
(Okay, pretty minor complaint in comparison.)
I really liked 2nd, but as others said, only works in much smaller games and it was riddled with more holes than my zombie targets after a Saturday at the shooting range. But it had imagination and character. Best edition? Sadly, not for me. Rules wise I had to give it to 5th.
44341
Post by: tyrannosaurus
 focusedfire wrote:Random Dude wrote:I think the sandbox idea of 7th can work really well within a small gaming group as long as your group lays down a few house rules and expectations. My games have been working pretty well with a few general guidlines: 1. No unbound 2. No LoW 3. No more than two CAD 4. No maelstrom (great for fun games not so much competition) 5. We're trying to work out a limit on warp charge dice that would be fair to both sides.
This is the fatal flaw of 7th ed. It pretty much requires the community to break up into a bunch of little cliques.
These cliques then work hard to make the game playable for them.
This creates barriers to pick-up games and to bringing in new players.
It does so via the "this is the way we play" mentality. So either the new guy becomes indoctrinated in a play style that is not his cup of tea or he goes out to try and find another group that better fits his view on the game.
There are reasons that 40k community is disappearing. Those reasons are 6th ed, 7th ed and GW's overall attitude.
I disagree that 7th is somehow unplayable as a PUG or inherently divides the community. I think it's only a problem that exists on the internet. For regular gaming groups, house rules are fine. My group had a number of tweaks we added to 6th, but these took a lot of back and forth over Facebook for a few weeks until we were all happy.
For PUGs, house rules are a bad idea. Just follow the rules as published in the rulebook and you'll be fine. When you start house-ruling no LoWs and limiting detatchments it will of course create conflict.You could cite the part in the rulebook that suggests you should agree on how to select armies, but the only rules provided are for Unbound and Battle Forged. Of course it makes much more sense in a PUG to use the published rules. In my group we ran narrative games with bespoke missions and FOC restrictions, but I would never turn up to a PUG looking to impose this sort of thing. However lots of people do something very similar [e.g. refusing to play against LoW], then report that 7th is broken for PUGs.
I organised a game the other day, and it was very simple. Three questions. Points limit? Unbound or Battle Forged? Maelstrom or normal missions? Where's the problem? If someone wants to use Unbound and you don't like it, find another opponent, in the same way as you would if they were running a legal list that you found offensive. If you don't like allies or LoW because you don't like the direction 40k is going, or because it makes the game less competitive, then 7th probably isn't the game for you. I think it's unfair to spoil it for those who are happy with the direction the game is going through imposing restrictions to turn it into your idea of what 40k should be.
I think it is great that we have all of this choice. If I wanted I could run an all Repentia army in Landraiders [I didn't, because we agreed on Battle Forged, but I could]. I could also use all of my Sisters models even in a Battle Forged list, and get to take choices that always go edged out by more competitive ones, e.g. Penitent Engines. I can also add in Inquisition allies along with Guard and Space Marines and make a fluffy Wit Hunters list.
66275
Post by: Random Dude
focusedfire wrote:Random Dude wrote:I think the sandbox idea of 7th can work really well within a small gaming group as long as your group lays down a few house rules and expectations. My games have been working pretty well with a few general guidlines: 1. No unbound 2. No LoW 3. No more than two CAD 4. No maelstrom (great for fun games not so much competition) 5. We're trying to work out a limit on warp charge dice that would be fair to both sides.
This is the fatal flaw of 7th ed. It pretty much requires the community to break up into a bunch of little cliques.
These cliques then work hard to make the game playable for them.
This creates barriers to pick-up games and to bringing in new players.
It does so via the "this is the way we play" mentality. So either the new guy becomes indoctrinated in a play style that is not his cup of tea or he goes out to try and find another group that better fits his view on the game.
There are reasons that 40k community is disappearing. Those reasons are 6th ed, 7th ed and GW's overall attitude.
The thing is, EVERYONE I've played with agrees with the 4 guidelines I laid down. At least where I live, the community is not breaking down into cliques.
84409
Post by: KommissarKarl
For all of its flaws, 5th edition. 6th fixed these flaws but introduced much bigger ones. I might ask my group if they're up for trying a homebrew 5th edition, with some rules tweaks.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
 tyrannosaurus wrote: focusedfire wrote:Random Dude wrote:I think the sandbox idea of 7th can work really well within a small gaming group as long as your group lays down a few house rules and expectations. My games have been working pretty well with a few general guidlines: 1. No unbound 2. No LoW 3. No more than two CAD 4. No maelstrom (great for fun games not so much competition) 5. We're trying to work out a limit on warp charge dice that would be fair to both sides.
This is the fatal flaw of 7th ed. It pretty much requires the community to break up into a bunch of little cliques.
These cliques then work hard to make the game playable for them.
This creates barriers to pick-up games and to bringing in new players.
It does so via the "this is the way we play" mentality. So either the new guy becomes indoctrinated in a play style that is not his cup of tea or he goes out to try and find another group that better fits his view on the game.
There are reasons that 40k community is disappearing. Those reasons are 6th ed, 7th ed and GW's overall attitude.
I disagree that 7th is somehow unplayable as a PUG or inherently divides the community. I think it's only a problem that exists on the internet. For regular gaming groups, house rules are fine. My group had a number of tweaks we added to 6th, but these took a lot of back and forth over Facebook for a few weeks until we were all happy.
My experience is, while not necessarily the opposite, certainly very different. As a club, we felt we had to take steps to outline what exactly constituted a PUG, so people knew where they stood when coming without a game planned in advance, and also to guard against one or two "more competitive" sorts exploiting the new formats to the detriment of other people's enjoyment of the game.
For PUGs, house rules are a bad idea. Just follow the rules as published in the rulebook and you'll be fine. When you start house-ruling no LoWs and limiting detatchments it will of course create conflict.You could cite the part in the rulebook that suggests you should agree on how to select armies, but the only rules provided are for Unbound and Battle Forged. Of course it makes much more sense in a PUG to use the published rules. In my group we ran narrative games with bespoke missions and FOC restrictions, but I would never turn up to a PUG looking to impose this sort of thing. However lots of people do something very similar [e.g. refusing to play against LoW], then report that 7th is broken for PUGs.
Except you can't, significant portions of the rules are written so badly that they cannot be played "as published." The independent Psykers losing their ability to generate warp charge or cast powers if attached to a non-psychic unit for one. Or, if you play that they can, they cannot apparently cast their own powers independently of a psychic unit if attached to them. Neither works properly, neither is technically wrong if played RAW.
I organised a game the other day, and it was very simple. Three questions. Points limit? Unbound or Battle Forged? Maelstrom or normal missions? Where's the problem? If someone wants to use Unbound and you don't like it, find another opponent, in the same way as you would if they were running a legal list that you found offensive. If you don't like allies or LoW because you don't like the direction 40k is going, or because it makes the game less competitive, then 7th probably isn't the game for you. I think it's unfair to spoil it for those who are happy with the direction the game is going through imposing restrictions to turn it into your idea of what 40k should be.
The "find another opponent" fallacy is a great one. If I attend my club, and there's an even number of players looking for a 40K game, and everyone else has paired off, how do I "find another opponent?" My choices are, in fact: don't play, force/persuade my opponent into compromising the way they want to play or compromise the way I want to play. Yeah, technically I have a choice, but it's hardly a good one. The "find another opponent" argument is the same logic as "this unit sucks because it isn't any good against this other unit that I've just constructed in my head" tactics argument. Fine in theory, doesn't really survive contact with reality.
I think it is great that we have all of this choice. If I wanted I could run an all Repentia army in Landraiders [I didn't, because we agreed on Battle Forged, but I could]. I could also use all of my Sisters models even in a Battle Forged list, and get to take choices that always go edged out by more competitive ones, e.g. Penitent Engines. I can also add in Inquisition allies along with Guard and Space Marines and make a fluffy Wit Hunters list.
Except that the one thing that seems unanimous, amongst those who want the game to be better and those with lower standards, is that the fluff is awesome, what Unbound does is codify abusing the game irrespective of the fluff for those who want to exploit every single unbalanced unit and loophole in order to win their games of toy soldiers. Being able to run whatever models you liked has always been possible, allies have always been possible, all you needed was opponents permission, and outside of a competition environment I'm sure that an understandable army construction (such as Sisters with Guard and Inquisition) wouldn't likely encounter too many issues with getting that.
But hey, if it did, you could always find another opponent.
44341
Post by: tyrannosaurus
 Azreal13 wrote:
Except you can't, significant portions of the rules are written so badly that they cannot be played "as published." The independent Psykers losing their ability to generate warp charge or cast powers if attached to a non-psychic unit for one. Or, if you play that they can, they cannot apparently cast their own powers independently of a psychic unit if attached to them. Neither works properly, neither is technically wrong if played RAW.
Agree the psychic phase is a cockup on the part of GW, although I think this is the only glaringly incompetent section of the rulebook though, and the rest is better written than previous editions [certainly better than 6th]. This isn't an issue with arranging a game though, this is a rules issue that will come up should one or both sides be using psykers, and if those psykers join another psyker unit.
Azreal13 wrote:
The "find another opponent" fallacy is a great one. If I attend my club, and there's an even number of players looking for a 40K game, and everyone else has paired off, how do I "find another opponent?" My choices are, in fact: don't play, force/persuade my opponent into compromising the way they want to play or compromise the way I want to play. Yeah, technically I have a choice, but it's hardly a good one. The "find another opponent" argument is the same logic as "this unit sucks because it isn't any good against this other unit that I've just constructed in my head" tactics argument. Fine in theory, doesn't really survive contact with reality.
In my experience of clubs [correct me if I'm wrong when it concerns yours] players usually pair up beforehand on the club forum, which also gives them an opportunity to discuss rules in advance, so I wouldn't consider that to be a PUG. If I went to a GW shop to get a game [/shudder] I would go with a very flexible attitude, and because I was flexible, I would have more chance of getting a game. Even if I was set on running an unbound list the rules allow my opponent to run a Battleforged list. The more restrictions and expectations I place on the game [e.g. no LoW, no Unbound, only two detachments etc.] the less likely it is that I will find a game, but that's not the fault of the rules, that's my fault for being inflexible.
Azreal13 wrote:
Except that the one thing that seems unanimous, amongst those who want the game to be better and those with lower standards, is that the fluff is awesome, what Unbound does is codify abusing the game irrespective of the fluff for those who want to exploit every single unbalanced unit and loophole in order to win their games of toy soldiers. Being able to run whatever models you liked has always been possible, allies have always been possible, all you needed was opponents permission, and outside of a competition environment I'm sure that an understandable army construction (such as Sisters with Guard and Inquisition) wouldn't likely encounter too many issues with getting that.
But hey, if it did, you could always find another opponent.
Except that, before 7th, I met a lot of resistance, even in my regular gaming group, to any deviation from the FoC. I also met resistance to using FW, and superheavies,despite Escalation and GW allowing FW units in tournaments. This caused a lot of splits and conflict in my gaming group, and with 7th, this is no longer the case. The game changed in my favour, in line with what I wanted from 40k, and I'm really happy about that. If it hadn't, I would have either quit, or stopped asking to use my titan and more than one ally. You can imagine how frustrating it is for me having to still have to justify things like LoW and fluffy lists, even though it's in black and white in the rules, just because these things don't fit in with someone else's idea of what 40k 'should' be.
84919
Post by: Gwaihirsbrother
While I haven't played 6th or 7th so could admittedly be missing the finer points, some of the arguments I am hearing for them don't really make sense to me. Yes, it is a matter of personal preference and tastes differ, I get that. What doesn't make sense is that it isn't like fliers and super heavies etc were introduced with 6th. We had those with Apocalypse and forge world long before. So if you liked that stuff you could play it.
Same thing with rules like combining with allies, unbound etc which I summarize in perhaps an overly simplistic way as being a rule that you can simply play whatever you feel like fielding. You'll need an opponent to agree and apparently many won't and gaming groups are house ruling that stuff out, so how is this any different than before? Here's a little secret: you could always play allies, unbound, etc if your opponent agreed. 6th and 7th didn't invent that.
So basically in order to allow people to do something they could always do anyway, GA introduces a bunch of core rules that large swathes of the player base don't like and forces people and groups to spend a bunch of time figuring out how to alter the core rules in a way that they find reasonably workable. I think it made much more sense when the game had a simpler core rule set and various supplemental rules that people could use for an expanded game.
--
I also wanted to commentake on a previous post mentioning terrain rules in 4th which I think were great terrain rules. Most of the criticism I've seen of those rules is based on not having actually understood those rules. Not everything was area terrain and not all area terrain was level three. So in the example above of shooting a flamer through a solid wall, that shouldn't have happened. The wall shouldn't have been area terrain. What did happen all to often was people treated every piece of terrain as level three area terrain. That misuse of the rules was the problem much more so than the rules themselves.
I remember telling an opponent "Let's treat this low rubble as lever two area terrain" and he looked at me like i was speaking a foreign language. TLOS makes it impossible to play with something like thick jungle because you can't place models in it and have it block line of sight like it should. The abstraction that was area terrain allowed greater diversity of terrain to be represented. Perhaps it didn't make sense for one inch to block line of sight, but a small tweak to the area terrain rule would have been better than simply abandoning it. And that is an example of something GW consistently gets wrong. They fix small problems with sweeping changes rather than small tweaks.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
tyrannosaurus wrote:
Azreal13 wrote:
The "find another opponent" fallacy is a great one. If I attend my club, and there's an even number of players looking for a 40K game, and everyone else has paired off, how do I "find another opponent?" My choices are, in fact: don't play, force/persuade my opponent into compromising the way they want to play or compromise the way I want to play. Yeah, technically I have a choice, but it's hardly a good one. The "find another opponent" argument is the same logic as "this unit sucks because it isn't any good against this other unit that I've just constructed in my head" tactics argument. Fine in theory, doesn't really survive contact with reality.
In my experience of clubs [correct me if I'm wrong when it concerns yours] players usually pair up beforehand on the club forum, which also gives them an opportunity to discuss rules in advance, so I wouldn't consider that to be a PUG. If I went to a GW shop to get a game [/shudder] I would go with a very flexible attitude, and because I was flexible, I would have more chance of getting a game. Even if I was set on running an unbound list the rules allow my opponent to run a Battleforged list. The more restrictions and expectations I place on the game [e.g. no LoW, no Unbound, only two detachments etc.] the less likely it is that I will find a game, but that's not the fault of the rules, that's my fault for being inflexible.
OK, your wrong. Consider yourself corrected.
Really, Players arranging a meet online is the exact opposite of a PUG.
Also, if everyone is pre-arranging games to make sure that they are playing like minded individuals then it means that the gaming community is excluding those that wish to pop in for a quick game.
This is a major failing of GW as of late. We in other parts of the world (not england) don't have 5 hours to waste trying to get a quick game.
The time investment GW expects for us to play the game is unrealistic if we are going to have friends outside of 40k and spend time with family.
tyrannosaurus wrote:
Azreal13 wrote:
Except that the one thing that seems unanimous, amongst those who want the game to be better and those with lower standards, is that the fluff is awesome, what Unbound does is codify abusing the game irrespective of the fluff for those who want to exploit every single unbalanced unit and loophole in order to win their games of toy soldiers. Being able to run whatever models you liked has always been possible, allies have always been possible, all you needed was opponents permission, and outside of a competition environment I'm sure that an understandable army construction (such as Sisters with Guard and Inquisition) wouldn't likely encounter too many issues with getting that.
But hey, if it did, you could always find another opponent.
Except that, before 7th, I met a lot of resistance, even in my regular gaming group, to any deviation from the FoC. I also met resistance to using FW, and superheavies,despite Escalation and GW allowing FW units in tournaments. This caused a lot of splits and conflict in my gaming group, and with 7th, this is no longer the case. The game changed in my favour, in line with what I wanted from 40k, and I'm really happy about that. If it hadn't, I would have either quit, or stopped asking to use my titan and more than one ally. You can imagine how frustrating it is for me having to still have to justify things like LoW and fluffy lists, even though it's in black and white in the rules, just because these things don't fit in with someone else's idea of what 40k 'should' be.
Actually, those things were not in the game before.
Apoc Flyers were still skimmers and Forge world was a separate game that used the same stat charts.
Yes you could use them with an opponents permission but there no "you're afraid to play the core game judgement".
They were not a part of the core rules for good reasons. GW chose to ignore those reasons to desperately grab for money with 6th ed.
They cluttered up the game with a bunch of unnecessary bloat. It was the Windows Vista of the 40k editions.
We hoped that 7th would be the windows 7 of 40k but instead we got Windows 8. A system with even more bloat and balance problems.
Your comment about being frustrated says a lot. Now if you could somehow lok at it from the other players perspective. Whoah, they are frustrated too.
Frustrating, probably the most apt one word descriptor for this edition.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
---snip---
So basically in order to allow people to do something they could always do anyway, GA introduces a bunch of core rules that large swathes of the player base don't like and forces people and groups to spend a bunch of time figuring out how to alter the core rules in a way that they find reasonably workable. I think it made much more sense when the game had a simpler core rule set and various supplemental rules that people could use for an expanded game.
I edited out the stuff already addressed in the reply to tyrannosaurus.
This last part I agree with and is at the crux of the problem.
Instead of letting the player community grow into things such as Flyers and Superheavies with rules that the players worked out for themselves, GW crammed them into the base game in a very shoddy manner.
The few proponents of 6th and 7th out there love to proclaim how much freedom these editions have.
I posit that they have less because they took something we could always "choose" to do before and codified them into the core rules. By creating rules they limited the game to there always being an "expectation" to play by the core rules.
Basically, Apoc and Flyers as supplements = More Freedom
Apoc and Flyers in the core rules = Less Freedom
Many of us want a "game" free of lawyer level negotiations. Matter of fact, I think this should be the tag-line for 7th ed:
"Made by lawyers for lawyers".
Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
I also wanted to commentake on a previous post mentioning terrain rules in 4th which I think were great terrain rules. Most of the criticism I've seen of those rules is based on not having actually understood those rules. Not everything was area terrain and not all area terrain was level three. So in the example above of shooting a flamer through a solid wall, that shouldn't have happened. The wall shouldn't have been area terrain. What did happen all to often was people treated every piece of terrain as level three area terrain. That misuse of the rules was the problem much more so than the rules themselves.
I remember telling an opponent "Let's treat this low rubble as lever two area terrain" and he looked at me like i was speaking a foreign language. TLOS makes it impossible to play with something like thick jungle because you can't place models in it and have it block line of sight like it should. The abstraction that was area terrain allowed greater diversity of terrain to be represented. Perhaps it didn't make sense for one inch to block line of sight, but a small tweak to the area terrain rule would have been better than simply abandoning it. And that is an example of something GW consistently gets wrong. They fix small problems with sweeping changes rather than small tweaks.
Seeing as this is about what I said previously, I'd like to correct your eronious assumption about lack of rules familiarity being the issue.
The problem was that the rules stated that you could see and shoot up to x inches into and out of area terrain.
They then went on to define area terrain as pretty much anything with a base or a group of individual pieces that created an area of sorts.
Because almost all terrain had some form of base at the time, this meant that pretty much everything was area terrain.
Which then triggered the area terrain los exception.
What you had to do was actually go through in pregame and explain that this solid wall did indeed block los. Very counter-intuitive.
It also led to constant arguing as to which terrain peices had been called as los blocking.
This is the reason for my distaste for 3rd&4th eds abstracted terrain system. The sheer number of times I had to interrupt my game to help another table with an impartial call. The number of times my games were interrupted by loud arguments from a near by table.
Basically, abstracted terrain led to very "gamey" exploitation of the rules.
--'
Want to address those that think 3rsd and 4th ed were magical paradises for shooty armies.
Area terrain blocked los for purpose of shooting through to domething on the other side.
Almost all terrain was area terain.
The IG excelled because of guess ranged weapons not needing los.
Later,
ff
84919
Post by: Gwaihirsbrother
They then went on to define area terrain as pretty much anything with a base or a group of individual pieces that created an area of sorts.
Because almost all terrain had some form of base at the time, this meant that pretty much everything was area terrain.
Which then triggered the area terrain los exception.
What you had to do was actually go through in pregame and explain that this solid wall did indeed block los. Very counter-intuitive.
It also led to constant arguing as to which terrain peices had been called as los blocking.
This is the reason for my distaste for 3rd&4th eds abstracted terrain system. The sheer number of times I had to interrupt my game to help another table with an impartial call. The number of times my games were interrupted by loud arguments from a near by table.
Just a couple thoughts. TLOS does not eliminate gamey exploits and arguments.
Part of what you are saying is what I was talking about that GW should do small tweaks rather than massive changes. A few more examples and small changes to the rules for greater clarity could have made the combined area terrain/ TLOS system work well.
44341
Post by: tyrannosaurus
Gwaihirsbrother wrote:While I haven't played 6th or 7th so could admittedly be missing the finer points, some of the arguments I am hearing for them don't really make sense to me. Yes, it is a matter of personal preference and tastes differ, I get that. What doesn't make sense is that it isn't like fliers and super heavies etc were introduced with 6th. We had those with Apocalypse and forge world long before. So if you liked that stuff you could play it.
Same thing with rules like combining with allies, unbound etc which I summarize in perhaps an overly simplistic way as being a rule that you can simply play whatever you feel like fielding. You'll need an opponent to agree and apparently many won't and gaming groups are house ruling that stuff out, so how is this any different than before? Here's a little secret: you could always play allies, unbound, etc if your opponent agreed. 6th and 7th didn't invent that.
Apocalypse was never optional for me, because it was never an option [and never will be]. If you've got room to host, can spend two days playing, and have friends who are also prepared to give up two days to play, then great. For the vast majority of people with jobs, partners and/or kids, Apocalypse games just aren't going to happen. However, I always wanted to play with titans, and in 6th I finally got to do that in 'standard' games as it was allowed by Escalation, which, as a supplement, was just as valid as using Iyanden. Titans were also allowed in 30k games and didn't seem to be causing any problems. However there was still lots of resistance, with people citing the D weapon rule as being too powerful.
Now that D has been nerfed, the arguments have now been reduced to "I just don't like it" "It just doesn't fit". I have a rulebook that says I am allowed to take titans, and your argument "I just don't like it" should be considered just as valid? One argument that I have repeatedly put forward, and haven't adequately had answered, is why people feel comfortable with refusing to follow certain rules in 40k, but then treat the rules in other games they play as sacrosanct. Imagine if I turned up looking for a game of X-Wing and refused to play against Tie-fighters because "I just don't like them". Actually, most LoW are much more of a liability than a strength. The Knight titan, which isn't a LoW, appears to be the most effective and popular of this type of unit, and seems to be widely accepted, despite having a D weapon, and considered by many to be OP.
In regards to allies, yes you could do that before 6th, but not without prior agreement and discussion, which pretty much kills them for the vast majority of games, in particular PUGs. Again, should the fact that you don't like allies or more than two detachments stop me taking a perfectly legal, fluffy, Inquisition/Sisters/Space Marines list? I shouldn't have to justify something that is in the rules.
6th and 7th took 40k in a new direction, a direction which I'm really pleased with, and finally allows me to play the game the way I want to without having to argue or justify my reasons. If people don;t like it, there are plenty of other alternatives, or they can play an earlier edition [5th seems popular!]. However saying that it is impossible to play PUGs in 7th is misleading, and forcing others to play your bastardised version of 7th so it fits your vision, despite the rules being on their side, is totally unreasonable.
54581
Post by: Kavish
7th is great. An improvement over 6th which was also fun. I started in 2nd and it was the edition that won my heart, but in hindsight, it was way more clunky and unbalanced than today's 40k.
46959
Post by: Dust
I got into the game on the tail end of 3rd so fourth editionreally holds a lot of fantastic memories for me. I only barely touched on 5th, missed 6th entirely, but so far I'm really enjoying 7th. The raw amount of variety that you can see in armies is really fantastic.
39721
Post by: Lothar
My favourite edition is 5th by far. The changes they made to rules after it and the power creep (which i felt also in the end of 5th - especially in GK codex) were really bad.
I kinda hate 7th edition, truly.
86326
Post by: dresnar1
4th was the best for me. It was the most tactical edition. Mostly because of no true line of sight and abstract rules for terrain. The addition of true line of sight and the removal of abstract terrain rules killed a very large part of the strategy of 40k and were introduced in fifth by Jervis Johnson. Its been a downward spiral from fifth to seventh. The game now is chutes and ladder with a cost of $400.00. The strategy has been completely removed by Jervis Johnson.
51464
Post by: Veteran Sergeant
I know I'm in the tiny, old, crusty minority that remembers 2nd Edition, but it still is, and perhaps at this rate always will be, my favorite edition.
It wasn't perfect, but it isn't like any of the subsequent editions have been either. But what it was, was a wargame. If 3rd edition had been a streamlining of 2nd Edition, and not a jumbled mess of setting up models, rolling dice, and removing them, the game would be in a far better state today.
|
|
