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.

With rumors of 8th edition looming next year, and it sounding like we might not see any more 7E codexes, which edition of 40K do you think "got it right"? Most importantly, why do you believe it was "right" - best rules, best codexes, best balance?

Although I've been happy to collect what I can of the hardbound 6E/7E codices, I have several older editions lying around. Being somewhat disgruntled with the state of 7E's ruleset, I'm curious if I might be happier with an older ruleset - and most importantly, why.

(As an aside, I have Marine, Tau, Tyranid, Necron, Imperial Guard, Eldar and Ork armies to fitz with for prior editions).

2nd edition.

Probably 5th. Not perfect by any means, it had a couple awful rules issues, but probably the best core rule edition all around. Codex issues began to plague it towards the end, but they were absolutely minor next to what we hve now.

I want to like 4th more, but the overly punitive vehicle rules, completely nonfunctional transport rules, and LoS/consilidation issues, I think 4E just had too many fundamental core rules issues.

7E is by far my least favorite edition between the absurd power creep, incoherent ruleset thats trying to be 3 or 4 different games at the same time (and failing), and the botched army construction rules the whole thing is just, awful. Also the fluff is now almost entirely devoid of anything worth reading.

Edit: 3E I feel was never fully fleshed out and we've basically been trying to fix this edition for nearly 18 years. 6E felt like it overcurbed 5E, a drastic overreaction to a few 5E issues while exacerbating others (and missing some of the big problems entirely) and, in concert with introducing the things that borked 7E so hard, ultimately overshadowed what 6E got right.

My favorite was 6th. I liked the addition of Allies rules, and preferred much of the 6e system over the changes that happened in 7e.

I only play forth edition now. Granted the rules have had some serious editing, like the whole sale removal of entangled when a transport blows up, but with just a few other tweeks here and there the game has actually become fun to play again. After all, no reason why you shouldn't customize a game three editions old to fit your personal liking.

I'd say Fifth edition, minus the Sisters minidex.

As a wargamer I'd probably say 2nd as the rules were more in depth, shooting modifiers made sense, combat was one on one (but took an age), tank movement was more lumbersome, but they were dangerous etc. The game took a long time to play and a lot more referring to tables, but it was a great game, and lots of fun.

As a collector of miniatures, 7th ed, as it has a much broader range of armies to choose from, and freedom to build fluffy armies without compromise. The only downside for me is the balance issues over such a big range, and people who can't see unbound as anything other than a power gamers domain.

5th, before the GK and Necro codexes.

Absolutely, unequivocally 5th edition. It's the most functional the game has ever been. I only had two problems with 5th:

1. The wound allocation shenanigans in complex units (easily fixable with a bullet point to address this, just forbid the player from putting a wound into a new wound group if there are any models not at full health)

2. Non-transport vehicles were almost totally useless because of how easy it was to stun lock.

It was a very simple, fun, and intuitive edition. All of the USRs fit on two pages, there was no obnoxious diagonal deployment, and you didn't have the insanity you have now. It also knew, mostly, what it wanted to be. 5th edition was much more a mass battle game than 7th edition, as all the skirmishy stuff was tacked on in 6th like challenges, by-model rather than by-unit cover and movement rules, closest-to-furthest wound allocation, precision shots, etc. I sincerely hope 8th edition brings us back to the simplicity of 5th. The game needs it real bad.

 Generalstoner wrote:
2nd edition.

+1. I'm strictly 2nd ed player these days. Sure it's not perfect, nothing ever is, nothing ever can be, but it takes lot less effort to get it working for us than any of the newer editions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JamesY wrote:
As a wargamer I'd probably say 2nd as the rules were more in depth, shooting modifiers made sense, combat was one on one (but took an age), tank movement was more lumbersome, but they were dangerous etc. The game took a long time to play and a lot more referring to tables, but it was a great game, and lots of fun.

As a collector of miniatures, 7th ed, as it has a much broader range of armies to choose from, and freedom to build fluffy armies without compromise. The only downside for me is the balance issues over such a big range, and people who can't see unbound as anything other than a power gamers domain.

Remove persistent effects and 2nd ed becomes lot faster. Combat took time but a) guns were main thing and you didn't have generally two big armies in huge melee(plus model count is smaller) so that helps. There's also handy quicker method of resolving combat with just 1 die per side that results in averages pretty much what standard rules did. I did not invent this, I just borrowed the idea:

WS + d6 + 2 for each parry +1 for each additional model after the first +1 for the model with the higher number of attacks.

That results in combats going in a swing!

For me the best edition was the 4th one: at that time I was a student a with my group of friend we had a lot of spare time. I liked the allocation rules and the area terrain rules with the different height that make the games very fast.
But at the moment I rediscovered 3rd edition: You can start playing 3rd with just the rulebook and the games are very streamlined, then you can pick all the books and you understand that you can play almost with every single model GW produces now; you have all current army, including Harlequins and Sisters of Battle, you have 3 Capter Approved books with vehicle design rules and you have campain rules. I remeber that during 3rd ed they used to be big FAQs documents and I don't have them anymore, but with the FAQs included in Capter Approved books you can play a friendly game easily. The best playing thi edition now is you can have proper models for Drop Pods and Wave Serpents that there were not available.

Whatever edition I started in, because I'm a human being affected by nostalgia for the period when I first got into a thing and I've convinced myself the thing changing is what's caused it to cease giving me such big pleasure highs.

Thing sucks now. Thing should go back to the way thing was when I first got into thing, and it should never have changed from that.

 Jimsolo wrote:
My favorite was 6th. I liked the addition of Allies rules, and preferred much of the 6e system over the changes that happened in 7e.

I agree. Although I do like the changes to the Psychic Phase of 7th, the army construction was WAAAAAYYYY better in 6th. Unbound and Come the Apoc allies should not be allowed. Part of the fun of the hobby is Army construction, but once you are free to do pretty much anything there really doesn't seem to be a point.

the_scotsman wrote:
Whatever edition I started in, because I'm a human being affected by nostalgia for the period when I first got into a thing and I've convinced myself the thing changing is what's caused it to cease giving me such big pleasure highs.

Thing sucks now. Thing should go back to the way thing was when I first got into thing, and it should never have changed from that.

Whatever edition is out right now, because I love GW wayyy too much to ever publicly admit that they screwed up a ruleset. My unconditional love of GW has convinced me that every new thing they put out is vastly superior to the old thing because GW is infallible and would never release something worse than what it replaced.

Old thing sucked, give GW all your money for new, better thing.

8th, because there is still hope.

7th. I like how Psychic powers are handled and I love formations, since they grant special rules, increasing the diversity of army building options.

I'm also particularly nostalgic for 2nd edition, since that was the edition I really started playing with, but I honestly probably wouldn't play it again for anything longer than a one off.

the_scotsman wrote:
Whatever edition I started in, because I'm a human being affected by nostalgia for the period when I first got into a thing and I've convinced myself the thing changing is what's caused it to cease giving me such big pleasure highs.

Thing sucks now. Thing should go back to the way thing was when I first got into thing, and it should never have changed from that.

I think there is a lot of people guilty of this that are unable to admit it to themselves.

The only other place I've encountered this mentality is the D&D community. I've had straight up face palm moments with 1E players who've never even played 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th who insist 1E is the best.

6th has been my favorite so far. It felt the most complete set of rules with the least amount of conflicting rule match ups. The terrain rules were concise and easy to use. The Psychic rules had PMLs and leadership rolls rather than conflicting Psychic units and Warp dice. Allying was handled in a reasonable manner, not the mix and match nightmare we currently have. 7th would have been much better if it was an extension of 6th rather than the failed cut and paste we ended up with.

SJ

For me probably early 6th ed, I think at that point the game had addressed some of the issues that plagued late 5th ed, but had not yet gone power creep crazy, and the first few books were fairly toned down. While I felt in needed some work it felt like it was going in the right direction. Then GW took a hard left and ended up where we are now.

5th Edition was the best. The rules were straightforward enough that there was no confusion and didn't have the bogus rules that came in later like taking casualties from the front. 6th did bring in good points like challenges and much need special rules but much was unnecessary like psykers and vehicle changes.

5th also had the best codex format. Not necessarily the best rules but the layout and selecting of armies. Everything had a single slot at the back of the book and there was no flipping back and forth between entries, wargear entries and armoury.

I loved 6th. You got the hardback codices with the lavish production and great art, it introduced a lot of cool rules in a time before things got as bloated as they are now, and the models were getting incredible. It also brought back armories which I really liked, and after how stagnant 5th edition had become, it was a welcome change.My best memories of the game are largely from 4th and early 5th edition, but 6th is the ruleset that I think was the best.

Among my favorite things in 6th:
- Very few and not as powerful formations
- Lower power scale (at first anyway)
- Psychic mastery levels and power cards without the clunky magic system they bolted on from Fantasy
- More limited allies options
- Introduction of hull points, meaning vehicles won't get stunlocked for 6 turns anymore
- Multiple power weapon types with drawbacks and benefits for each
- Fortifications, even if I only ever used the Aegis + quadgun

 Deadshot wrote:
5th Edition was the best. The rules were straightforward enough that there was no confusion and didn't have the bogus rules that came in later like taking casualties from the front.

Don't care what people say about this one. I like this rule.

It prevents shenanigans, makes things more predictable for the person who's firing the weapon and actually makes the movement phase more important.

Oh, you put your very important, but very squishy, HQ in the back of that squad? Lemme deep strike these melta havocs real quick...

Oh, you surrounded your HQ with marker light drones? Sweet. Lemme surround that squad with these AP 4 dudes...

It also prevents the "Ok, he'll take a wound, he'll take a wound, he'll take a wound...AND NOBODY DIES" nonsense. [In fact, it annoys me that you can still do this with swarms.]

The 5th edition wound allocation rules were so obnoxious, I was more than happy to see them gone.

Every edition had wound allocation issues. I particularly disliked 5th’s due to the shenanigans that could be pulled. It just felt gimmicky and cheep. I prefer what we have now to it. Although the “who’s closest?” and look out sir! stuff slows down gameplay more then I’d like. While 3rd might not have been the best (the guy getting shot chose who died) where nothing relevant died until the last men, at least it was quick and easy, with no arguments.

RT/2nd were packed with special rules. All that was cut in 3rd, which made for a much smoother fast-paced game. I liked that. Ever since then, we’ve been slowly creeping back to the complexity of the old days.

My nostalgia glasses tell me 3rd is the best. Objectively, I’d probably say 5th. But every edition has it’s flaws. I’m happy with 7th, and if/when 8th comes, I’m sure I’ll be fine with it. The will fix some things, break others. Just like every time they come out with new rules.

 Traditio wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
5th Edition was the best. The rules were straightforward enough that there was no confusion and didn't have the bogus rules that came in later like taking casualties from the front.

Don't care what people say about this one. I like this rule.

It prevents shenanigans, makes things more predictable for the person who's firing the weapon and actually makes the movement phase more important.

Oh, you put your very important, but very squishy, HQ in the back of that squad? Lemme deep strike these melta havocs real quick...

Oh, you surrounded your HQ with marker light drones? Sweet. Lemme surround that squad with these AP 4 dudes...

It also prevents the "Ok, he'll take a wound, he'll take a wound, he'll take a wound...AND NOBODY DIES" nonsense. [In fact, it annoys me that you can still do this with swarms.]

This is a terrible rule that means your important guy simply gets sniped and makes the unit useless. Oh, your squad has a missile launcher? I'll plonk these deepstrikers down and kill him so the unit will never do anything. PLus those unique models are always the favourites, most unique and best painted. Especially when it means your HQ has to tank everything because the chumps in front of him were cut down and he goes down like a bitch to bolter fire instead of being the disgustingly tough to kill SOB he's supposed to be. I enjoy cinematics but the guys in front aren't always the first to die. Bullets can miss and hit guys behind, and its always always always the hero let standing at the end when his comrades are dead behind him.

You want someone to die? Hit them with more stuff. It means those heroic deathstar units just vanish and we have chump troops everywhere, unless those Deathstars aren't deathstars but in fact F22s that hit fast and hard enough they don't need to worry about anything.

Also it means those short ranged weapons like Meltas and Flamers never get used unless you deep strike them. Many many times has it been where a meltagun finds itself just out of range and then killed immediately because he failed penetrate AV14 on 1D6 or misses and immediately dies before doing anything useful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
5th Edition was the best. The rules were straightforward enough that there was no confusion and didn't have the bogus rules that came in later like taking casualties from the front.

Don't care what people say about this one. I like this rule.

It prevents shenanigans, makes things more predictable for the person who's firing the weapon and actually makes the movement phase more important.

Oh, you put your very important, but very squishy, HQ in the back of that squad? Lemme deep strike these melta havocs real quick...

Oh, you surrounded your HQ with marker light drones? Sweet. Lemme surround that squad with these AP 4 dudes...

It also prevents the "Ok, he'll take a wound, he'll take a wound, he'll take a wound...AND NOBODY DIES" nonsense. [In fact, it annoys me that you can still do this with swarms.]

This is a terrible rule that means your important guy simply gets sniped and makes the unit useless. Oh, your squad has a missile launcher? I'll plonk these deepstrikers down and kill him so the unit will never do anything. PLus those unique models are always the favourites, most unique and best painted. Especially when it means your HQ has to tank everything because the chumps in front of him were cut down and he goes down like a bitch to bolter fire instead of being the disgustingly tough to kill SOB he's supposed to be. I enjoy cinematics but the guys in front aren't always the first to die. Bullets can miss and hit guys behind, and its always always always the hero let standing at the end when his comrades are dead behind him.

You want someone to die? Hit them with more stuff. It means those heroic deathstar units just vanish and we have chump troops everywhere, unless those Deathstars aren't deathstars but in fact F22s that hit fast and hard enough they don't need to worry about anything.

i preferred second ed. in the group i played with then we played smaller games. every thing could be upgraded and buffed. lots of ways to over come the god like unit. heavy weapons could shoot at armor units instead of what the others were shooting at. LOS meant something, you could build your own vehicles. and we had true overwatch.

 Traditio wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
5th Edition was the best. The rules were straightforward enough that there was no confusion and didn't have the bogus rules that came in later like taking casualties from the front.

Don't care what people say about this one. I like this rule.

It prevents shenanigans, makes things more predictable for the person who's firing the weapon and actually makes the movement phase more important.

hrm, between Look Out Sir and "take from the front", there's more shennanigans possible than ever. More to the point, for a game fundamentally built around units, not individual models, and played at a platoon or company (or in some cases almost *battalion*) scale, this level of micromanagement and "tactical" finagling of individually equiped infantry is completely inappropriate and out of place.

In a skirmish game built around individual model actions, it could work and make sense. But 40k is very much not that.

 Generalstoner wrote:
2nd edition.

This was actually the worst game.

Vaktathi wrote:hrm, between Look Out Sir and "take from the front", there's more shennanigans possible than ever.

Like what?

More to the point, for a game fundamentally built around units, not individual models, and played at a platoon or company (or in some cases almost *battalion*) scale, this level of micromanagement and "tactical" finagling of individually equiped infantry is completely inappropriate and out of place.

In a skirmish game built around individual model actions, it could work and make sense. But 40k is very much not that.

Ultimately, as I said, I don't really care.

For me, it's a matter of what cuts out shenanigans and prevents power gaming. Even if it's inappropriate for the scale of the game, if it "sticks it to the power gamers," I'm cool with it.

 Traditio wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:hrm, between Look Out Sir and "take from the front", there's more shennanigans possible than ever.

Like what?

More to the point, for a game fundamentally built around units, not individual models, and played at a platoon or company (or in some cases almost *battalion*) scale, this level of micromanagement and "tactical" finagling of individually equiped infantry is completely inappropriate and out of place.

In a skirmish game built around individual model actions, it could work and make sense. But 40k is very much not that.

Ultimately, as I said, I don't really care.

For me, it's a matter of what cuts out shenanigans and prevents power gaming. Even if it's inappropriate for the scale of the game, if it "sticks it to the power gamers," I'm cool with it.

It doesn't really stick it to power gamers because power gamers will always exist and always find a way to abuse the system, its in the nature. Even if the game was 3 units that may not have the same loadout, power gamers will bring 3 of the best unit possible with the only difference being one has a melta bomb and one has a melta bomb and defensive grenades.

For a skirmish rule set, 2nd ed that GW published.(But the 3rd ed the GW Dev's developed , that corporate would not publish,would have been much better. )

Out of the 40k battle games ,4th and 5th ed sort of tie.As the issues could have been corrected with adjustmetns to core rules and codex books.

After the game devs gave up on game play in 6th edition, its just been about selling bigger kits for more profit since then.

As players have ALWAYS been able to make stuff up and fight big narrative battles.
Why do GW seem to feel the need to provide the sort of rules any group can hash out between themselves?

And leave out all the really difficult part of game development, writing rules,( with enough game play depth and balance suited ,) for enjoyable pick up games?