Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Started recently so 5th

I voted 4th for nostalgia's sake, since that's where I started. 5th, however, does make for a better game.

i voted 4th aswell its where i got my start, when tyranids were red and tau were new,..when everything was peachy..havent played 5th yet so not to sure how it is but 4th for now (:

2nd ed for me. The Overwatch rule gave you something to think about and Assassins were still scary.

I came in with AoBR in 5th, so that's what I know, but I've gleaned a bit about older editions and I think I'd be happiest where I am. Sure, I'd like a bit more variety in codices (I was a little heartbroken after reading some old SM stuff and dreaming up a custom chapter, only to realize that all the Index Astartes traits and custom snazziness went the way of the Squat), but the game works well enough and there is enough variety to keep things relatively interesting.

TLOS is anything but complicated; complaints to the contrary are just whiners who don't want to take the time to bend down and check (how about some immersion, people? Get that model's eye view!). I feel like a lot of the complaints I hear about X being broken and Y being nerfed and Z being blahblahblah come as much from a perspective shift in the gamers as from the rules set. Look around Dakka and count the number of "this looks awesome and fun!" threads vs. the number of posts centered on the words: overpowered, worthless, win, viable, tournament, broken, beat, etc.

Oh, and as for UM trim color, of course they want to spiff up their posterboys. There is a precedent, inasmuch as the SM chapter colors and symbols adhere roughly to the form of European heraldry, in which some colors and metals are interchangeable (i.e. white=silver, yellow=gold). I fully agree with gold being used for heraldic purposes on the snazziest models, relics, and the like. GW just went a bit overboard with the whole "pimp our posterboys" bling campaign. Just because gold=yellow doesn't mean gold should replace yellow on EVERY DAMN THING THE CHAPTER OWNS. It's called taste. Or tact. Or protecting solid assets.

warpcrafter wrote:Second edition all the way. You can take your 'true line of sight' and your 'streamlining' and your wound allocation all the other myriad GW brainfarts and stick 'em.

H.B.M.C. wrote:2nd Ed, where tanks acted like fething tanks and not glass hammers (4th) or 'main battle bunkers' (3rd & 5th).

I'm from the 2nd edition day, back when tanks were tanks and las-cannons were foundly called Tank busters. Graykinghts are the soul creation of the 2nd Legon (Dark Millenium upgrade pack). Pskers were some thing to be feard, Grater Deamonds alone could stomp an army. Commisar Yarick had the rule that any unit on the table that could phisicly see him would pass any and all tests.....
....Ah, those were the days

i began with 5th edition (AORB) and i really havent bothered to read any old rulebooks. so 5th edition is the best

I'm gonna say 2nd, because that's where I started

5th, I just think the game continues to evolve in a positive direction!

5th edition by far. I dont understand why people slate it, its so much better than 4th, and anything before that is just hilarious.

hardly play 40k so i don't know, i prefer doing modelling and painting

2nd, that was 40k at its best. Just started playing 5th and its fun but armies dont feel quite as unique as they did back then.

2nd edition.

RT is a bit too raw, they hadn't worked out much of the fluff as it stands today, and has largely stood since 2nd edition. So there's a lot of weirdness and strange stuff in the rules, it's also rather complicated in places. Streamlined it isn't, but I like it for skirmish type games and it is a lot of fun.

2nd edition did it all for me, a lot of things fell into place and it's by far my prefered version. So what if there were a lot of card counters for wargear and psychic rules? It was a good time to be in the hobby.

After 2nd edition they dumbed it down far too much and suddenly codexes were wafer thin will all the fluff cut out. 3rd edition scrapped individual movement rules, most psychological rules, many of the rules surrounding vehicles and reduced bikes to little more than a movement bonus. Ugh. A lot of individuality and creativity has been expunged from the game today, you get the impression of it with various space marine chapters being offered but the game is too rigid for real creativity and experimental lists.

I don't really know.

I haven't seen many. Only this one,the last one and a peek at the one before that,the one with the BT on the front.

I really don't like how they took out all the special missions and different force organization charts from the 3rd edition rulebook. Now they're in that Battle Missions book. GW has become greedier and greedier since I started playing ;( it's sad.

Despite all the things I miss from 2nd Ed., 5th is still the best game to me. But I'm starting to get itchy, rulesy, designy. Might turn my hand towards making my own ruleset soon. But for pure gameplay? 5th wins, hands down, in my book.

mortal888 wrote:I can see why 5th edition comes out on top for most people since it's easy to play and discourages stationary play.

My favorite though is still 3.5, when there were so many different armies available you couldn't keep track of them all and all of the codeciis were viable. You could play against one space marine chapter, then play the next one and it was a completely different experience. Orks had clans, chaos had legions, IG had doctrines and abhuman choices, Lost and the Damned weren't just imperial guard painted differently, and special characters felt "special" instead of being expected all the time. Citadel Journal was still pumping out rules like the genestealer cult. White Dwarf was something to look forward to. It seemed to be more about the modeling than the sport too.

I miss those days.

LordBoJangles wrote:SWEEPING ADVANCE AND CONSOLIDATE INTO CLOSE COMBAT WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHGH!

CadianXV wrote:I started in 3rd, and I think one lesson to be learned from it was the diversity of codices and variant armies. Lost and the Damned being a fantastic example- bring 'em back GW.

BishopGore wrote:3rd was when they turned it around, made it into a Troop based game. Not keen on some of the changes since then, I play 5th rules, but remember third fondly.

These sum mine up.

I agree with tek- and I miss GW encouraging you to build your own terrain and stuff :/ but the rules weren't quite as smooth as they are now.

Even tho I started in RT, 2nd ed was the funnest for me. The Compilation, Compendium, two Ork books, RoCs. Fun, immeasurable army lists and HeroHammer 40K. It was fun fun fun!

5th is the most tactically flexible out of 3rd-5th. I didn't play 1st and 2nd, but the more 5th I play the happier I get with it.

5th is the mopst bug free , but i still like 4th's creazy wound alocation(ORK NOBZ)

Gotta be 2nd. 3rd was awful and I don't think the game ever really recovered from it. Hopefully 6th will see a radical overhaul.

5th FTW!!!

Ive only really played 5th and 4th regularly, and of those two I like 5th more. However, I really want to get a hold of 1st, 2nd and 3rd editions. They seem a lot cooler to me.

I've only ever played 5th.

4th it was when i started and quit. I was good in forth and pretty good in 5th

I've only played in 5th Edition so I'm quite biased in that regard. From what I've been told 4th was a revision of 5th with view changes and if that's the case then 5th should be better. I don't see 1st or 2nd edition being all that great. I don't know much about 3rd edition, but I have a feeling there is a reason most people don't speak fondly of 3rd edition at my FLGS or 4th Edition for that matter too.

2nd all the way, when armies truly felt unique and full of character, and you could truly personalize your force.

Strategy Cards, Wargear Cards, the Psychic Phase, armories, hidden missions, overwatch, throwable grenades, sustained fire, split fire, flamers that lit people on fire, tanks that weren't crewed by a single person, bizarre weapons that do all kinds of fun effects (Looking at you, orks and eldar) and real TLOS (not this watered down 5th ed version of it).... These are the elements I truly miss about the game.

H.B.M.C. wrote:2nd Ed, where tanks acted like fething tanks and not glass hammers (4th) or 'main battle bunkers' (3rd & 5th).

Says the IG player...

Nah, just messing with you HBMC! I'm just defensive because my
Nids don't like tanks...

For me, 5th. But then again, that's the only edition I've played...

Cosmic wrote: Even though 5th edition is clearly the best, 3rd edition is where I started out in the hobby. The old school marine pictures and stuff bring back the innocent memories of those days. *Sigh...*

The Ultramarines (Second Company) were cooler when they had yellow shoulder pad trims! Anyone agree?

yellow pads ftw. my ultramarines are yellow pads, i really dont like the gold.