Taking off the rose tints and looking at things objectively what was your fav or best edition of 40k?

I enjoyed 5th quite a bit, although Im not sure, looking back, it was because I played it the most (barring 2nd but that was a looong time ago).
6th was fun but it just seemed to come and go and then 7th dropped quickly afterwards. Im enjoying 7th with maelstrom and more psychics and despite the hate I like the way there is no meta at the moment and you can ally/choose from a huge range of armies/lists.
I never played 3rd, had dropped out at that point so cant comment.
4th was simpler to a degree which was nice but I always felt it didnt have that "ooomph" factor.
I played 2nd probably the most during my school days with time to burn and whilst fun it did have glaring craziness to it. However it did have a nice scale to it and some of the mission cards were very nice as in tactics wise.

Do you think taking the best bits from each edition would make a "perfect" game, are you happy with 7th or was there an edition you felt was spot on?

there was a thread about this semi recently and it seems that 5th is the favorite edition with 7th being second. i assume many who might vote for other editions are abstaining from voting.

I see, I missed that thread, apologies =/

All my "good memories" are from 6th edition.

But objectively, 5th was the most functional edition out of the latest three.

Rogue Trader began the enchantment for me and still holds so many great memories... but I've been loving 7th so far.

5th edition for me

5th.

It had a few niggling problems. Namely wound allocation with a couple of corner case (and unfortunately popular) units and kill points to an extent.

Other than those things (and a few niggling codex specific problems. Nothing to the extent that 7th has) you had pretty much the basis for a perfect edition of 40k.

So what does GW do? Well, we saw what they did...

5th was the best edition by a pretty fair margin. There were a few problems, namely wound allocation and vehicle damage, but all it would take is a little fix to leave us with a tight, fluid system that's suitable for tournament and narrative play.

6th by a long shot, although the new army selection mechanics from 7th are awesome. I don't care for the new Psychic system, and have yet to try malestrom, but conversely I love every change between 5th and 6th.

I like 7th a lot. Psychic is really gimmicky, so I'm not sure, but I like the new vehicle damage. Unbound is fun, but I'm not completely sold on it. Maelstrom is a blast though

Sixth. Overwatch was a desperately needed component of the game. I loved the rules changes overall, and seventh is only slightly worse.

If i had to pick one i'd say 5th as well.

I started in 2nd edition, so it's always going to compare favorably to what came after... But 5th is by far my favourite.

I would have liked to see the revamped (but completely written) psychic rules, Warlord Traits and a more reasonably version of Hull Points added to that system rather than the re-worked mess that we got with 6th/7th instead.

I like 5th even though it was rhino rush/tankhammer 40k. 7th would be my favorite if they removed some of the randomness, apoc models, wound allocation from the front, unbound and maelstrom.

Here be the poll we had recently:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/606652.page

Overwhelming victory to 5th with 37%, then 4th with 22%, 7th came in with only 18%, then a tie between 2nd and 3rd each with 8%, 6th with only 5% and Rogue Trader came in last with 1%.

5th was probably the most functional, playable, and balanced. Also the best supported by FAQ's.

That's not to say it didn't have issues, it did have them and they were very large issues indeed (Kill Points, Wound Allocation, etc), so much so that I still find myself surprised to vote for it.

However, next to the other editions, and certainly next to the current edition, it was the one I found people had the most fun with in general.

7th is nice in that it allows people to run wild with their imaginations, but it's also horrifying in that way as well. For every lovingly crafted, well thought out, and cleverly built unique force I've seen with the expanded army creation rules, there's a hundred fluff abortion power builds. There are simply far too huge gaps in effectiveness between certain units types (e.g. flyer vs non-flyer, skimmer vs non skimmer, MC's vs Vehicles, etc) and too many ways to abuse army construction to make it a consistently fun and portable experience.

I'm just going to quote what I said in the last thread, because my feeling haven't changed:

 vipoid wrote:
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 additions to your 6th edition rulebooks.

I'd say 5th, from my experience as well. 6th fixed a lot of the problems that 5th had, but the pendulum swung too far. Shooting was a bit too weak in 5th compared to assault, but - from an Ork player's perspective - introducing Overwatch and random charge distance and removing casualties from the front and challenges and the ability to target models in a unit not in cover were too many changes in shooting's favor.

As a Tyranid player I found 5th rather challenging playing against IG armies, especially gun lines.

2nd is still my favourite. We were running a demo game of 2nd ed at the Battleground show last weekend!

5th

2nd Edition
It's when I started, so, yes, there is a pretty big nostalgia factor there. But it's also when GW was a company that actually liked its customers and produced multiple game systems. Sure, it had its problems, but I think the atmosphere of playing 2nd Edition was far better than today.

6th I think the Sniper, Vector Strike, FMC and Psychic rules were much better.

 obithius wrote:
2nd is still my favourite. We were running a demo game of 2nd ed at the Battleground show last weekend!

I'm in the midst of a revamp of 2nd Edition 40K mechanics to utilize some of the better aspects of some modern games.

Really, 2nd Edition's main faults were a clumsy psychic phase and some poor list balance. In terms of its base mechanics, it's far better than any version of the game since. Really the only thing the current game might do better is assault.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Really, 2nd Edition's main faults were a clumsy psychic phase and some poor list balance. In terms of its base mechanics, it's far better than any version of the game since. Really the only thing the current game might do better is assault.

I don't recall the psychic phase being particularly clumsy. The assault phase was a far bigger problem, particularly in larger games.

tgjensen wrote:
Shooting was a bit too weak in 5th compared to assault

See, this is something I struggle to understand.

Even in 5th, shooting always seemed stronger than melee. Not by a huge amount, but certainly enough to give shooting armies a definite edge.

 insaniak wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Really, 2nd Edition's main faults were a clumsy psychic phase and some poor list balance. In terms of its base mechanics, it's far better than any version of the game since. Really the only thing the current game might do better is assault.

I don't recall the psychic phase being particularly clumsy. The assault phase was a far bigger problem, particularly in larger games.

The card dealing and such seemed to add about an hour to a four turn game. Perhaps clumsy wasn't the best word. Just more time consuming than anything else.

My LGS had a few tournaments that banned psykers in order to make the games playable within the scope of a day.

This comes up every week or so. 5th is the favorite of the very vocal players. Doesnt mean it was the favorite of the most, just the most vocal.
These threads always end up going off topic with insults going back, well they always end up only going in one direction,

In the end different "types" of players (playstyles as well as personality as the two are usually closely related) preffered different editions for different reasons.
Some preferred different editions for fluff reasons while others preferred it for nostalia reasons. In the end, its a purely personal and subjective question with the same for answers.

 EVIL INC wrote:
This comes up every week or so. 5th is the favorite of the very vocal players. Doesnt mean it was the favorite of the most, just the most violently vocal.
These threads always end up going off topic with insults going back, well they always end up only going in one direction,

In the end different "types" of players (playstyles as well as personality as the two are usually closely related) preffered different editions for different reasons.
Some preferred different editions for fluff reasons while others preferred it for nostalia reasons. In the end, its a purely personal and subjective question with the same for answers.

Decries thread due to it always ending in insults

Insults a load of people.



Oh Evil, you never learn do you?

 Grimtuff wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
This comes up every week or so. 5th is the favorite of the very vocal players. Doesnt mean it was the favorite of the most, just the most violently vocal.
These threads always end up going off topic with insults going back, well they always end up only going in one direction,

In the end different "types" of players (playstyles as well as personality as the two are usually closely related) preffered different editions for different reasons.
Some preferred different editions for fluff reasons while others preferred it for nostalia reasons. In the end, its a purely personal and subjective question with the same for answers.

Decries thread due to it always ending in insults

Insults a load of people.



Oh Evil, you never learn do you?

You took the words right out of my mouth.

 EVIL INC wrote:
This comes up every week or so. 5th is the favorite of the very vocal players. Doesnt mean it was the favorite of the most, just the most violently vocal.
These threads always end up going off topic with insults going back, well they always end up only going in one direction,

In the end different "types" of players (playstyles as well as personality as the two are usually closely related) preffered different editions for different reasons.
Some preferred different editions for fluff reasons while others preferred it for nostalia reasons. In the end, its a purely personal and subjective question with the same for answers.

Violently vocal?

Really?

Luckily. I refrain from insults myself.
pointing out that these threads always end up in messes of people saying this edition is the best or that editionis the best with no one ever considering that both sides could be right because to them they feel that different ones are their favorite?
Oh yes, I never learn because I always end up reading them anyway. Of course, evidently, neither do you because I see your reading it as well. lol

 EVIL INC wrote:
Luckily. I refrain from insults myself.

Demonstrably untrue.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Luckily. I refrain from insults myself.

Probably best to just ignore him.

Its not like he's contributing in any meaningful manner.

Yes, indeed true. Although I am sure there are those who live in glass houses who will make claims otherwise.

However, since you obviously disagree. I challenge you.
Pick the edition you prefer whichever one it is and kindly explain why it is the best edition and why all other players have to have it as their favorite and why they are so wrong to have a favorite that is different from yours

I personally feel that everyone should decide what is their favorite based on their personal preferences, likes and dislikes whether it be rules, game play, fluff, personal history in terms of which one they have the fondest memories of games ect and so forth and understand that different people will have different favorite editions. That making fun of them or insulting them for having a different favorite is impolite.

I dont have a single favorite. I prefer aspects of some over others and vice versa and have fonder memories of some over others.

2nd was easier to play than RT.

RT is more charming, weirder, nostalgic but the game can take ages and be disjointed at times.

then i didn't touch it again until 7th.

I enjoyed 7th. 8th is OK but there are some funny ideas going on that make it my least favourite of them all.

so i will say

2nd is my favourite.

When you say 7th and 8th, do you mean 6th and 7th? Reason being that we haven't had 8th yet (unless you know something we don't know...), and 7th is the most recent edition.

OK.

Some general rules of thumb:

1) Everyone's got an opinion.

2) Not everyone will agree.

And, of course, please follow ALL the rules of Dakka Dakka.

Thanks!

 Alpharius wrote:
OK.

Some general rules of thumb:

1) Everyone's got an opinion.

2) Not everyone will agree.

And, of course, please follow ALL the rules of Dakka Dakka.

Thanks!

Exalted. Thank you.

I'm pretty sure that daddyorchips just got the numbering a little confused. No big deal. After 7 editions, it is easy. Sometimes, it all seems to just run together lol.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Exalted. Thank you. .

That was directed at you as well.

 insaniak wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Exalted. Thank you. .

That was directed at you as well.

Absolutely. I assumed it was directed at everyone in the thread myself included. It should be directed at EVERYONE on the site regardless of who they are as well as a reminder is always useful. I dont hold myself above the law and neither should anyone else.

repeat my feelings on the matter....

I personally feel that everyone should decide what is their favorite based on their personal preferences, likes and dislikes whether it be rules, game play, fluff, personal history in terms of which one they have the fondest memories of games ect and so forth and understand that different people will have different favorite editions. That making fun of them or insulting them for having a different favorite is impolite.

*Edit* Breaking my own advice from earlier in the thread.

None of which has anything to do with the actual topic of discussion.

Please stick to the topic, and leave the telling people how to behave to the moderators.

Personally, I preferred Rogue trader when considering my old Chaos army. Nostalia because that was when I started playing.Also, because the Realm of Chaos books allowed for a MUCH wider variety of personalization and custimization within the army. After all, a D1000 mutation chart and the ability to have each and every single model in your army have different mutations has to be fun.
With my guard, I preferred 6th/7th because it is a shooty army and now it is a viable army to take.
I feel that as this is an opinion based question, each person will give a correct answer.

I'm curious. I played during early 5th edition (2010) then quit to pursue other hobbies.

What were the big changes from 5th > 6th> 7th. What got worse better, etc?

Darkzephyr wrote:
I'm curious. I played during early 5th edition (2010) then quit to pursue other hobbies.

What were the big changes from 5th > 6th> 7th. What got worse better, etc?

5th to 6th changed some of the missions/deployment, added in allies, some changes to psychic rules by introducing Rulebook lores, massively nerfed vehicles and introduced HP's, and introduced Flyers. Lots of new special rules like Hammer of Wrath, Strikedown, Zealot, added in the concept of "snapshots" and Random charge distances, and a few other things.

7th changed scoring units entirely to be basically anything and everything, integrated Superheavy vehicles and Gargantuan Creatures into the core rules, in terms of army construction basically allows you to take as many FoC's as you want and allow any allies (with varying degrees of compatibility) within a given points value (or to do away with it entirely and just field whatever you want), added a Psychic phase back in, added a new randomized set of objectives and missions called "Maelstrom of War" missions, etc.

It's always surprising how well 5th edition does in these polls, as when it came, 4th edition veterans put up absolutely HUGE whinestorm. Particularly True LOS, that didn't go over well. Also new wound allocation and cover system, which disabled some popular tactics - for example, Rhino Sniping. This was seen as dumbing down the game tactically.

What 5th edition had going for it was clarity - there was just much less crap as absolutely only legal units were those in the Codeci. There were no longer White Dwarf units, supplementary codices, FW units were permission only...in fact, during the late 4th/early 5th, the pendulum went too far, and the game felt too abstract and sterile. Also when GW hired a new FAQ guy, it made the game much more playable.

For me, choosing between 5th and 6th is toss-up, as 6th edition was improvement in some respects, but also had some stupidity (like way too lenient Ally matrix) and the rulebook had tons of poorly clarified rules. 7th is better than 6th in almost every respect.

Backfire wrote:
It's always surprising how well 5th edition does in these polls, as when it came, 4th edition veterans put up absolutely HUGE whinestorm. Particularly True LOS, that didn't go over well. Also new wound allocation and cover system, which disabled some popular tactics - for example, Rhino Sniping. This was seen as dumbing down the game tactically.

What 5th edition had going for it was clarity - there was just much less crap as absolutely only legal units were those in the Codeci. There were no longer White Dwarf units, supplementary codices, FW units were permission only...

To be fair, nothing actually has changed with regards to FW in terms of actual rules between 5E and 6E/7E, 6E just pulled the stick out of people's butts when the last reamining legs of any sort of "balance" arguments were kicked out with the introduction of allies (and its awful matrix). Many events already started allowing FW stuff in 5th, there were no actual rules changes regarding FW's usage with 6th, people just couldn't find any remaining reasons to try and ban it beyond "it's expensive" with the allies rules kicking about.

There were still some White Dwarf inclusion, Sisters of Battle got a WD book in 5th and Blood Angels still used a White Dwarf list for the first couple years of 5E.

But yes overall it was much more manageable than 7E.

Well, I've played 5th the most, I enjoyed it a lot back when it was going. I remember 40k being really huge at a lot of the places I'd attend during 5th...that's not to say it's not still popular, but during 5th it was something everyone played.

I bought the collector's edition of 6th because I was so excited about it but it quickly became nuisance-some with a lot of the rules shenanigans going on (watching units tank a bucket-load of wounds off a leader was quite absurd). I never really enjoyed it as much, especially with the inclusion of fliers (which I still feel don't have a place in a skirmish-size battle) and things like Escalation being marked as a core rule set and not an expansion made the edition feel worse and worse. That was really the general feeling of 6th- that it started off positive and quickly started sinking like the Titanic.

7th seems like it has cleaned up some of the things from 6th, although looking at it from the outside I'm not much of a fan of the army construction (or lack there-of) rules. That, and of course it doubled-down on some of the things I don't like, such as super-heavies (mainly in the form of Knights...EVERYWHRE) and fliers.

3rd I had a taste of a long time ago and it's something I'd like to learn how to play entirely. The armies were certainly smaller, while it seems that the feeling of the "game" was pretty similar to 40k as it stands now, with units costing less and less in points with each update.

But yeah, I'm going to stick with 5th. Not perfect, but it was at the very minimum the most successful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Backfire wrote:
What 5th edition had going for it was clarity - there was just much less crap as absolutely only legal units were those in the Codeci. There were no longer White Dwarf units, supplementary codices, FW units were permission only...in fact, during the late 4th/early 5th, the pendulum went too far, and the game felt too abstract and sterile. Also when GW hired a new FAQ guy, it made the game much more playable.

Man, that would do wonders for the game these days! I wonder why they don't bring him back?

Backfire wrote:
It's always surprising how well 5th edition does in these polls, as when it came, 4th edition veterans put up absolutely HUGE whinestorm. Particularly True LOS, that didn't go over well. Also new wound allocation and cover system, which disabled some popular tactics - for example, Rhino Sniping. This was seen as dumbing down the game tactically.

True LOS in 5th was mostly just unpopular with those who were playing it wrong in 4th, and thought it was something new. 4th edition was a mess, and 5th (for all its faults) did a reasonable job of cleaning up a lot of that mess.

7th edition is my favorite. It made me realize I made the correct decision in quitting 40k at the beginning of 6th edition and stop spending my hobby money on GW's overpriced merchandise.

5-th was faster, easier and with lots and lots of boxes all around. The killpoint system was quite unballanced.
7-th is taking more time, has more random stuff but it's more tactical with positioning being very important due to per-model cover and deaths of the clsoest. Maelstorm is awesome. The games are much better than in 6-th due to it.

Now if there was 5-th with maelstorm and no killpoints and more reasonable vehicles...but as it is, i like 7-th more. It's more time consuming but is it really bad for a hobby?

5e. It was much less of a chaotic mess then 7e. And less randomness. Gods above, I hate all the tables you have to roll on these days.

 EVIL INC wrote:
5th is the favorite of the very vocal players. Doesnt mean it was the favorite of the most.

Actually, the poll of 702 votes had 37% preferring 5th to only 22% favouring 4th and a mere 18% preferring 7th. This is despite the fact the poll is only of existing dakka members... there's no way to take in to account all the people who quit the game between 7th and 5th.

So yes, it was the favourite of most, not just a vocal minority.

As I pointed out in other thread, 5th edition was actually more random than the 6th/7th. The randomness may have been less obvious to some, but it affected the game more.

6th/7th have too many random tables, which are annoying, but seldom affect the game much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Accolade wrote:
Well, I've played 5th the most, I enjoyed it a lot back when it was going. I remember 40k being really huge at a lot of the places I'd attend during 5th...that's not to say it's not still popular, but during 5th it was something everyone played.

I say that big factor for 5th edition popularity was AOBR. It was first really good starter set with great minis and cheap price.
Also, it seemed to me at the time that lots of Fantasy players were moving into 40k. 7th edition was killing WHFB and when 5th edition 40k came out with more objective based missions, making the game more tactical, lots of people jumped ship.

It had problems, but 5th was my favorite.

Backfire wrote:
As I pointed out in other thread, 5th edition was actually more random than the 6th/7th. The randomness may have been less obvious to some, but it affected the game more.

I disagree - 5th was markedly less random than 6th or 7th - both in terms of general randomness *and* in terms of how much that randomness influenced the game.

Or, are we talking about the problem of 7th being Rock, Paper Scissors? Where you can easily have matches won or lost before a game has even begun. In which case, you could make an argument for that being less random, though it would hardly be a point in the game's favour.

I like 7th best, however I liked the Psychic rules from 6th better. I now feel like I'm pausing for a game of Yahtzee in 7th.

 jasper76 wrote:
however I liked the Psychic rules from 6th better. I now feel like I'm pausing for a game of Yahtzee in 7th.

I can certainly relate to this.

Hate 7th made my army useless against the 4 opponents I play the most, with no real options to get better . I liked 6th up untile escalation and D template frenzy, where suddenly every 2.5L bottle was a reaver titan. I played at the very end of 5th, but liked it a lot , even with its crazy armies.

What army do you play, Makumba?

 vipoid wrote:

Backfire wrote:
As I pointed out in other thread, 5th edition was actually more random than the 6th/7th. The randomness may have been less obvious to some, but it affected the game more.

I disagree - 5th was markedly less random than 6th or 7th - both in terms of general randomness *and* in terms of how much that randomness influenced the game.

I disagree with your disagreement. 6/7th edition randomness is annoying, but often pointless randomness like Psychic powers or Warlord traits, which seldom have major effect on the game. By contrast, 5th edition randomness was stuff like Night fighting or Vehicle damage table, which had huge effect. If you were a shooty army and rolled poor first turn in Night fighting or didn't get any Immobilized/destroyed results on enemy transports, that was game over right there. Or say you counted on your reserves coming in and they came only in Turn5 when everything else you had was wiped out already...

Backfire wrote:
I disagree with your disagreement. 6/7th edition randomness is annoying, but often pointless randomness like Psychic powers or Warlord traits, which seldom have major effect on the game.

Um, psychic powers can and do have a major effect on the game.

Backfire wrote:
By contrast, 5th edition randomness was stuff like Night fighting or Vehicle damage table, which had huge effect. If you were a shooty army and rolled poor first turn in Night fighting or didn't get any Immobilized/destroyed results on enemy transports, that was game over right there.

Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. Shooting armies could still do just fine even if their first turn was lacking because of night fighting.

With regard to vehicles... the damage table is still there. And, there's even less chance of getting an immobilised or destroyed result now.

Backfire wrote:
Or say you counted on your reserves coming in and they came only in Turn5 when everything else you had was wiped out already...

Again, how is that different from what we have today? Reserves are still random. People can still end up with their reserves sitting out most of the game.

 vipoid wrote:

Backfire wrote:
I disagree with your disagreement. 6/7th edition randomness is annoying, but often pointless randomness like Psychic powers or Warlord traits, which seldom have major effect on the game.

Um, psychic powers can and do have a major effect on the game.

Bigger than a reserve roll? Worst thing with Psychic power table which can happen is that you get a power which is less good than some others.

 vipoid wrote:

Backfire wrote:
By contrast, 5th edition randomness was stuff like Night fighting or Vehicle damage table, which had huge effect. If you were a shooty army and rolled poor first turn in Night fighting or didn't get any Immobilized/destroyed results on enemy transports, that was game over right there.

Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. Shooting armies could still do just fine even if their first turn was lacking because of night fighting.

In 5th edition Night Fighting only came in Dawn of War deployment where other army began at half table. It basically meant not only your deployment was screwed, but your shooting in first turn could potentially amount to zilch, meaning enemy mechanized units would roll over you right away. Maybe my view is skewed because I played Tau, but I found that in DoW scenarios, if I failed couple of rolls in the first turn, it was generally game over right then & there.

 vipoid wrote:

With regard to vehicles... the damage table is still there. And, there's even less chance of getting an immobilised or destroyed result now.

But you have Hull points which are very reliable way to kill a vehicle. In 5th edition, you could end up doing no meaningful damage at all, and often did: what does it help if you Stun a GK vehicle, or blow a Big Shoota off a Battlewagon? Nothing. Now, even "poor" hits generally progress the destruction of the vehicle.

 vipoid wrote:

Backfire wrote:
Or say you counted on your reserves coming in and they came only in Turn5 when everything else you had was wiped out already...

Again, how is that different from what we have today? Reserves are still random. People can still end up with their reserves sitting out most of the game.

Reserve rolls are much easier now, and reserves come in automatically in Turn 4. In 5th it was Turn 5. Putting units in reserve was a huge risk in 5th if your army was not designed as Full Reserve army (Drop pods etc).

Backfire wrote:


In 5th edition Night Fighting only came in Dawn of War deployment where other army began at half table. It basically meant not only your deployment was screwed, but your shooting in first turn could potentially amount to zilch, meaning enemy mechanized units would roll over you right away. Maybe my view is skewed because I played Tau, but I found that in DoW scenarios, if I failed couple of rolls in the first turn, it was generally game over right then & there.

Blacksun filters were widely available for Tau which greatly mitigated that probably better than anything else in the game.

But you have Hull points which are very reliable way to kill a vehicle. In 5th edition, you could end up doing no meaningful damage at all, and often did: what does it help if you Stun a GK vehicle, or blow a Big Shoota off a Battlewagon? Nothing. Now, even "poor" hits generally progress the destruction of the vehicle.

In 5th anything that could penetrate a vehicle killed it on the same odds as AP1 pen's do now, and even though glances couldn't outright kill a vehicle they would disable or degrade it very effectively.

Currently vehicles are absurdly easy to kill, especially in CC, having what are effectively "wounds" but no armor saves, and still having a damage table, is why, barring things with lots of mitigation (3+ jinking skimmers, flyers, superheavies) you don't see vehicle heavy armies doing particularly well.

Backfire wrote:

Bigger than a reserve roll? Worst thing with Psychic power table which can happen is that you get a power which is less good than some others.

It's a problem when the powers are "balanced" by being random. Invisibility is more broken than just about anything in 5th, but don't worry - you might not roll it.

Also, I don't understand the comparison to reserves - they're still random, after all.

One other thing, 5th didn't have random victory points or random missions. Those are most certainly not minor.

In 5th edition Night Fighting only came in Dawn of War deployment where other army began at half table. It basically meant not only your deployment was screwed, but your shooting in first turn could potentially amount to zilch, meaning enemy mechanized units would roll over you right away. Maybe my view is skewed because I played Tau, but I found that in DoW scenarios, if I failed couple of rolls in the first turn, it was generally game over right then & there.

Could you elaborate on these "mechanised units" that "roll over you". 'Mechanised unit' is very vague, and I'm having trouble understanding what you're referring to. Were you rolled by tanks, by open-topped transports, by shooty units in transports, by assault units in transports, or some combination?

But you have Hull points which are very reliable way to kill a vehicle. In 5th edition, you could end up doing no meaningful damage at all, and often did: what does it help if you Stun a GK vehicle, or blow a Big Shoota off a Battlewagon? Nothing. Now, even "poor" hits generally progress the destruction of the vehicle.

That's somewhat true. On the other hand, hull points are meaningless until they're all gone. So, knocking a hull point off a rhino or battlewagon is no more helpful than the scenarios you mentioned. Granted, it does mean that vehicles can't survive indefinitely, but it also means that they'll frequently be working at full-capacity until they finally drop. In addition, penetrating hits have, if anything, gotten more random. In 5th, if you penetrated a vehicle, you would almost certainly do some serious damage to it and stood a good chance of destroying it outright. Nowadays, even a penetrating hit from an AP2 weapon has a pathetic 1/6 chance of destroying a vehicle - most of the time it'll just make the crew spill their drinks. This makes destroying vehicles outright very random.

Saying that, I do think that Hull Points are a step forward - I just don't think they're well-executed. It seems like a poor attempt to mesh wounds with vehicle-damage. Personally, I think they (along with the vehicle damage table) make glancing hits too good and penetrating hits too weak.

Also, we now have an entire class of vehicle based around throwing the dice and hoping to roll some 6s.

Reserve rolls are much easier now, and reserves come in automatically in Turn 4. In 5th it was Turn 5. Putting units in reserve was a huge risk in 5th if your army was not designed as Full Reserve army (Drop pods etc).

I certainly wouldn't say much easier. The only difference is that they come on on a 3+ on the first roll, rather than a 4+. Coming in automatically on turn 4 is nice, but it doesn't make the preceding turns any less random, and can still leave units stuck in reserve for a good chunk of the game.

Don't forget the entirety of Maelstrom, mysterious objectives and terrain, random wound allocation, random weapon destroyed on vehicles, and random tables scattered throughout the codices and rulebook of often smaller importance (why is Perils a random table? Honestly).

If the most random stuff about 5th were vehicles, reserves, and night fighting on a single mission, I'm happy to keep thinking 7th is far more random as a whole, and takes more control out of the player and places it in random rolls far more than 5th.

The biggest perversity of the current vehicle system is that by and large it heavily emphasizes mutli-shot general purpose medium weapons over dedicated heavy anti-tank guns.

Why bother with trying to put a Railgun into a vehicle when the chance to kill it outright is relatively small and in all likelyhood you'll only strip a single HP (and if it's got Jink then chances are you won't even get that), as opposed to a bunch of S7 missiles that have a greater chance of making it through Jink or Smoke saves (thanks to more shots) and can take off more than 1 HP with a single salvo, even if they don't have a chance to blow it up?

On top of that, 7E's also got a huge skimmer vs non-skimmer divide much like 3E and 4E did.

 Vaktathi wrote:


On top of that, 7E's also got a huge skimmer vs non-skimmer divide much like 3E and 4E did.

Not to mention the Vehicle vs. MC divide.

*shudder* yeah.

It gets worse when you get into flyers, at least most flying vehicles are AV10 or AV11, with only 2 or 3 Hull points, an only a few are AV12. Meanwhile we've got lots of MC's sporting 3+ armor saves (and often invul saves) and 4+ wounds, and can even Jink when not flying.

I don't sound bitter do I?

Not at all.

Tell me again where the Flyrant touched you?

 Vaktathi wrote:
The biggest perversity of the current vehicle system is that by and large it heavily emphasizes mutli-shot general purpose medium weapons over dedicated heavy anti-tank guns.

Why bother with trying to put a Railgun into a vehicle when the chance to kill it outright is relatively small and in all likelyhood you'll only strip a single HP (and if it's got Jink then chances are you won't even get that), as opposed to a bunch of S7 missiles that have a greater chance of making it through Jink or Smoke saves (thanks to more shots) and can take off more than 1 HP with a single salvo, even if they don't have a chance to blow it up?

7th is weird in that vehicles feel both too resilient and yet somehow not resilient enough. I like the *idea* of hull points, but most vehicles seem to have barely any. They take few hits that apparently aren't enough to even shake the vehicle, and then suddenly fall apart because... reasons. On the other hand, penetrating hits rarely seem to do anything meaningful. I think a more damaging penetration table with increased hull points would be better (could also have some/all penetrating hits inflict multiple hull points).

 Vaktathi wrote:
On top of that, 7E's also got a huge skimmer vs non-skimmer divide much like 3E and 4E did.

It's because GW really sucks at giving units weaknesses. Much like the walker-MCs, skimmers have to be DA BEST AT EVERYFINK!!! Better speed than tracked vehicles, better armament than tracked vehicles, equal or better capacity than tracked vehicles, much more resilient than tracked vehicles. The only skimmers that seem reasonably balanced are DE ones - since their firepower isn't particularly impressive, and they're actually very fragile.

 vipoid wrote:
What army do you play, Makumba?

Guard.


Random wouldn't be as bad, if it wasn't there to draw out the game in to infinity. 5th was ok as far as time goes, 6th was already slowing down. now pre game rolls can take up as much as 10+ min , without actualy checking what opponent rolls do.

 Blacksails wrote:
Not at all.

Tell me again where the Flyrant touched you?

Right in the Valkyrie, he didn't even give me the candy he promised :(

 vipoid wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The biggest perversity of the current vehicle system is that by and large it heavily emphasizes mutli-shot general purpose medium weapons over dedicated heavy anti-tank guns.

Why bother with trying to put a Railgun into a vehicle when the chance to kill it outright is relatively small and in all likelyhood you'll only strip a single HP (and if it's got Jink then chances are you won't even get that), as opposed to a bunch of S7 missiles that have a greater chance of making it through Jink or Smoke saves (thanks to more shots) and can take off more than 1 HP with a single salvo, even if they don't have a chance to blow it up?

7th is weird in that vehicles feel both too resilient and yet somehow not resilient enough. I like the *idea* of hull points, but most vehicles seem to have barely any. They take few hits that apparently aren't enough to even shake the vehicle, and then suddenly fall apart because... reasons. On the other hand, penetrating hits rarely seem to do anything meaningful. I think a more damaging penetration table with increased hull points would be better (could also have some/all penetrating hits inflict multiple hull points).

Personally I'd rather see just one or the other, there's no reason to have two overlapping kill mechanics. A big problem with 5E was that glances basically didn't bother transports 5/6ths of the time and pen's only bothered them 50% of the time. Gun-tanks were very much affected by 100% of results on either type of hit. Nobody particularly complained about battle tanks in 5E, you won't find threads complaining about how hard it is to deal with Land Raiders or Hammerheads or the like, rather, it was the 35pt Rhino. If they moved back to a 5E style damage table with the 7E mechanics to passengers (e.g. passengers have to pass an Ld test if a vehicle is stunned or they're less effective) it probably wouldn't be too bad, especially as you can't assault out of Rhino's anymore no matter what. If they fixed Jink to have an effect on Open Topped transports and guys shooting out/assaulting that would probably tie up most loose ends. Either that or just move them all entirely over to the T/Sv system and be done with it.

It's because GW really sucks at giving units weaknesses. Much like the walker-MCs, skimmers have to be DA BEST AT EVERYFINK!!! Better speed than tracked vehicles, better armament than tracked vehicles, equal or better capacity than tracked vehicles, much more resilient than tracked vehicles. The only skimmers that seem reasonably balanced are DE ones - since their firepower isn't particularly impressive, and they're actually very fragile.

Indeed, that's very true, though even DE transports can still constantly jink for a 4+ (or 3+ if upgraded) with no effect whatsoever on people shooting or assaulting out of it

Has an Iron Warriors player: 3 ed (yop good old CSM 3.5)

2nd and 3rd editions.

 Blacksails wrote:
Don't forget the entirety of Maelstrom, mysterious objectives and terrain, random wound allocation, random weapon destroyed on vehicles, and random tables scattered throughout the codices and rulebook of often smaller importance (why is Perils a random table? Honestly).

If the most random stuff about 5th were vehicles, reserves, and night fighting on a single mission, I'm happy to keep thinking 7th is far more random as a whole, and takes more control out of the player and places it in random rolls far more than 5th.

I like fun random tables. I dislike random wound allocation. Not cause it might kill someone important - that's actually a good thing - but cause it's pretty time consuming to allocate 2 random wounds to 30 guyz.

I had the most enjoyment when playing 6th, but only because of the armies I used during it (previous version Elder, and current Necrons). I preferred 5th edition over what little I remember of 4th, and definitely over 6th, and I don't doubt that I'd have enjoyed playing both the aforementioned armies in 5th just as much as, if not more than, playing them in 6th.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
5th is the favorite of the very vocal players. Doesnt mean it was the favorite of the most.

Actually, the poll of 702 votes had 37% preferring 5th to only 22% favouring 4th and a mere 18% preferring 7th. This is despite the fact the poll is only of existing dakka members... there's no way to take in to account all the people who quit the game between 7th and 5th.

So yes, it was the favourite of most, not just a vocal minority.

Was every 40k player in the world polled and required to answer? Further was the answers of each pollee confidential? Was the poll slanted with leading answers? Just asking because unless these can be verified, it leads us to believe that said poll was not entirely accurate.
My point was not everyone takes part in a poll. Especially if they feel that they will be hounded and harrassed for it. As pointed out earlier also, different types of players "suffer" differently. A "shooty style" player is more likely to shrug and deal with it ignoring polls while an assault players will be more likely to take part in every poll possible to be heard. The location of the poll and the community it is posted in will also make a difference. Questions asked can also make a difference as well as possible answers given (or not given) to choose from......

Not a fan of the random roll for psychic powers (in any edition). I'd much rather be able to choose them and them be appropriately costed. i'd like to think that my psychers researched and meditated on what they thought they would need for an upcoming battle instead of just randomly tearing pages out of their lorebook to skim through on the way to the battlefield.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Was every 40k player in the world polled and required to answer?

Do you have a wider poll we can use? If anything, I'd say the poll is skewed in favour of 6th and 7th as I'm sure many people who preferred 2nd through 5th no longer frequent the forums and so their votes would go uncounted.

Further was the answers of each pollee confidential?

Yes.

Was the poll slanted with leading answers?

No.

I'm sure the poll wasn't perfect... but over 700 voters is a pretty good turn out if you ask me. It certainly demonstrates the opposite of what you were saying, which is that, yes, a majority did seem to like 4th and 5th to 6th and 7th.

Of course it's personal preference, that's so obvious that it hardly bears mentioning. But all evidence points to 4th and 5th being the more popular editions.

Out of the 700 who took part, 4th/5th was more popular.

Different playstyles have been rewarded in different editions. 5th rewarded the assault rush playstyle while 6th/7th rewarded the sit and shoot playstyle. other variations throughout the others going all the way back to RT where the "cinimatic" game ruled with the game master controlling and arbitrating the game and it being more of a warband/taskforce style skirmish setting.

My point is that different playstyles usually attract different "types" of people. Different types of people have different ways of coping with adversity. The sit and shoot variety will usually not take part in polls o "complain" on the internet while the assault players are more likely to take part in polls and "complain on the internet.

I have played every edition to date and i have enjoyed playing in all of them. To pick an overall favorite for me would be impossible.
In rogue trader, it ws just myself and a 2 close friends playing one another on the kitchen table or on the floor with stacked books or cassete tape cases and other litter for terrain. We named our characters and had hours of enjoyment. We still laugh at the time my dark elf crossbows killed off a squad of chaos marines after surviving a missile launcher blast unscathed. Another story we enjoy to banter about is when my champion Sven the Slayer fought my buddies minataur champion Grrran (I forget how many "r" and "a" were in there) and was losing until Sven managed to cause a wound and suck the minataur into the daemon blade and win. My buddy always said that his character would get mine upon release and I would return with "thats why Sven is never gonna release him".
2nd edition, I played with the same buddies and a 4th one who had joined our group. Myself and the newcomer would go to a local shop to play with others who were newer to the game and play. It was a young but enthousiastic group and later, a few other older playes joined and we had a lot of fun overall.
3rd edition I had started to play in a wider area yet and met a lot of new players including a bunch of college students who played and was introduced to a more competetive environment.
4th edition I didnt get to play much but id ok and won a few prizes at a shop that ran tournaments.
5th-7th, I played at a local shop and did very well competatively and my painting skills blossomed to where i started winning painting competitions even to the point where a few times i won out in that catagory over a golden daemon catagory winner.
In each edition, the edition was "only rules" to learn. The important part was playing the game and enjoying the company of friends or playing a game with like minded people in a friendly environment. Banter and enjoyment were the order of the day. My timeline may be a bit blurred in relation to editions but if it is, it is because that was secondary to the groups I played with and the fun we had over the decades.
I preferred RT for chaos due to the variety and randomness because to me, thats what chaos was. My guard preferred 6th-7th because that was when they became more powerfull. Not that they did not perform well in 5th for me as they did very well for me then too.
The rules sucked in all editions. Not a single one was perfect. I think that way too many people get hung up on the rules and which edition is "better" and forget about actually playing the game. My personal opinion is that when you argue and make fun of someone because they prefer a diifferent edition than you and try to change their mind, you are forgetting what gaming is all about. The enjoyment of spending time with friends to get away from the "real world".

 EVIL INC wrote:

My point is that different playstyles usually attract different "types" of people. Different types of people have different ways of coping with adversity. The sit and shoot variety will usually not take part in polls o "complain" on the internet while the assault players are more likely to take part in polls and "complain on the internet.

Well, there are several reason why this statement is wrong, fallacious, or generally inaccurate.

Its a gross generalization with nothing to back it up, and has no real relevance to the poll in question. Unless you can find evidence to say that only or a majority who complain play only a specific type of gameplay, while ensuring all other reasons for complaining is isolated and accounted for.

Good luck.

My personal opinion is that when you argue and make fun of someone because they prefer a diifferent edition than you and try to change their mind, you are forgetting what gaming is all about. The enjoyment of spending time with friends to get away from the "real world".

Why do you this in all your posts?

No one is forgetting what gaming is about.

No one is making of fun of anyone.

No is trying to change their mind. Its called discussing. No one is trying to convert you.

No one has lost sight of how to have fun with friends.

*Edit* For someone who constantly adds things like you said above, where people shouldn't be made fun of or insulted for preferring something different, you sure do like to make fun of and generally insult other people for disliking something you enjoy.

Edited by RiTides - Let's not bring in inflammatory comments from other threads here, please.

Do a little research on personality types and wargaming. Research has fully supported my theory to date, feel free to do a little research on your own. You'll find some interesting reading. I came across much of it in my researches in sociology. A few internet searches will get you started.This could actually go a long way in explaining why different personality types prefer different gaming styles. Keep in mind that the search results will encompass a large number of games including actual real world military ones used by military personnel. try different variations or the wording. I wont list links because that would be considered spam and since i've kept from spamming so far, dont want to start now.

if you do not like that i do not have a "favorite" edition, that is fine. Allow me to not have a favorite edition in peace. I dont try to change your mind about which you prefer. To me, they are just rules What is far more important is the enjoyment of gaming and the camaraderie of friends. As a matter of fact, 3 other buddies and i played DUST Tactics last weekend and had as much fun as we did playing 40k. the game and rules were socondary to the enjoyment of time spent together escaping the real world.

But to make you smile, I very much enjoyed 5th edition as well as the others. I still remember having loads of deep striking guardsmen with plasma guns dropping and blasting away at my power armored opponents (usually getting hot and killing themselves off lol). i remember winning my first game in one tournament with the first shot of the game as the other guy was not able to recover from the loss of his "power unit". He clustered his space pups up tightly together and my battle cannon shot landed on target killing I think 14 out of 15 of them. So I guess you could say that in regards to variation allowed and different "one trick pony" exploits, my guard did enjoy 5th as much as they do 6th and 7th.

I think for a detailed and characterful skirmish game, 2nd edition.(Although over complicated at least it delivered plenty of characters and detail.)

Out of all the battle games,(3rd -7th.) 5th edition came closest to a reasonable game.(But still had massive over complication and poor clarity.)

 EVIL INC wrote:


My point is that different playstyles usually attract different "types" of people. Different types of people have different ways of coping with adversity. The sit and shoot variety will usually not take part in polls o "complain" on the internet while the assault players are more likely to take part in polls and "complain on the internet.

I like 5th.
I like shooty armies.
Your theory is false with nothing to back it up.

No one is trying to convert you to 5th. The question was asked, "which edition do you like best" and we responded. Just because I like 5th doesn't mean I lost the spirit of the game.

I've had to edit a few posts. Please remember that accusations of trolling usually are, in fact, trolling themselves! And refrain from using such an inflammatory term in this thread.

My favorite edition of 40k? Hmm... I have some fond memories of 3rd, but there were a number of broken things that ended up making it less so, like always seems to be the case! If I had to pick one, I think I would say 5th edition.

EVIL INC wrote:Different playstyles have been rewarded in different editions. 5th rewarded the assault rush playstyle while 6th/7th rewarded the sit and shoot playstyle. other variations throughout the others going all the way back to RT where the "cinimatic" game ruled with the game master controlling and arbitrating the game and it being more of a warband/taskforce style skirmish setting.

My point is that different playstyles usually attract different "types" of people.

Of course, I never disagreed with this... in fact I thought it was so obvious it didn't bear mentioning

Different types of people have different ways of coping with adversity. The sit and shoot variety will usually not take part in polls o "complain" on the internet while the assault players are more likely to take part in polls and "complain on the internet.

This is the statement you need to back up with something. Personally my ranking of the editions has little to do with whether I prefer shooting or assault. My favourite editions are the ones that are most balanced and/or most characterful and/or need the least modification to become a solid game.

My personal opinion is that when you argue and make fun of someone because they prefer a diifferent edition than you and try to change their mind, you are forgetting what gaming is all about. The enjoyment of spending time with friends to get away from the "real world".

I'm not really sure how what we are doing (discussing our favourite editions and why) is any different to what you are doing (discussing that you don't have a favourite edition). I'm not here to change anyone's mind, I'm just here to discuss things (and point out BS statements ).

EVIL INC wrote:Do a little research on personality types and wargaming. Research has fully supported my theory to date, feel free to do a little research on your own.

This is not how research works. Trust me, I have done research professionally... you don't say "I've done research and found this, you do research of your own!". It goes "I've done research, this is what the research says, these are links to other peoples' research for reference and this is how my results fit in to that body of work for me to come to my conclusion".

In short: Provide links or your statements just come across as disingenuous.

I wont list links because that would be considered spam and since i've kept from spamming so far, dont want to start now.

No, it would not be considered spam. Don't use that as an excuse, just provide the links, if it's considered spam (which it won't be) the mods will decide and remove it. You've posted over 1200 words of text on this page of this thread alone, the "I don't want to spam" excuse is not meaningful at this point.

if you do not like that i do not have a "favorite" edition, that is fine. Allow me to not have a favorite edition in peace. I dont try to change your mind about which you prefer.

No one is trying to change your mind. YOU are the one who disregarded people who like 5th more as simply being violently vocal, so don't try and act the victim.

There's nothing wrong with liking all editions equally, I don't, but I think it's fine that you do. That's not what pisses people off, what pisses people off is when you call them violently vocal and disregard their complaints as being simply because they like assault more.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Research has fully supported my theory to date

Ok, I'll just look at the data you've completely failed to provide, and then follow the links you didn't bother posting, and then finish off by examining the charts you didn't feel were important enough to share.

While taking my sociology classes in college, I found that using gaming was an easy way to do research papers. Also an easy way to do other papers and presentations. Regardless, finding the information is fairly easy. As a matter of fact, I did a research paper on this very issue (in regards to online gaming but as we all know online games also have the "assault" and the "turret farmer" style players) and not only got a perfect score on my paper but was also asked to come to the proff's office after class where she asked me for permission to use my paper in her own research on the same subject.
The information is so easy to get that it would be an insult to you to provide it because that would be implying that you were unable to do so for yourself and that insult would be breaking the rules of the site. Likewise, if I were to be so impolite as to break the rules in that way, it would be breaking another of the site rules because posting hundreds upon hundreds of websites would be considered spam.

If you choose to disregard the theory out of a lack of looking for yourself, feel free to do so, but I am not wasting my time doing re-researching it when you are intelligent and competent to do it for yourself. Like I said, it would be an insult to you to assume you cant and do it for you.

Personally, I dont care what edition you prefer. I too enjoyed 5th edition. The only part i did not like about it was assault units consolidating into other units after winning a combat without the 2nd unit getting a chance to fire at it in it's own turn or even snap fire. My only issue is players (obviously not any players who are members here, I have to add that caveot in to prevent anyone assuming I am speaking of them) trying to force their views on others to make them like the same edition against their personal preferences. What is someones favorite is entirely subjective. I can totally understand why someone would prefer 5th edition. the rules were much updated from earlier editions and worked well. i enjoyed many games using it with both the rules and the people I played with. I personally fieel it is insulting and impolite to demean others for preferring a n edition other than 5th. I may be alone in that feeling and i am ok with that.

Edit: The rest of the post is relevent and on topic but I thought I would add in an aside that also relates...
What edition was it that had the hit charts that you rolled on when shooting at a vehicle? The one that reminded me of the old epic charts used for shooting at titans. I found these charts...interesting. I dont think they were what the game needed and was glad when they were removed but they were interesting and I just cant remember where they fit in in the edition timeline.

Not how it works, mate.

 EVIL INC wrote:
I too enjoyed 5th edition. The only part i did not like about it was assault units consolidating into other units after winning a combat without the 2nd unit getting a chance to fire at it in it's own turn or even snap fire.

5th edition didn't allow consolidation into close combat.

Really? that was the only real issue i had with it. You are the absolute first person to tell me this. with life/jobs/lack of playing time, the editions run together.
You would think that instead of giving me the treatment for saying that i didnt like that single thing about 5th edition, someone woulda just told me that.
My bad on that and I thank you for telling me.
It doesnt magically make me prefer 5th edition over any other though because i still maintain my belief that the actual rules are secondary to the enjoyment had by playing the game.

MrDwhitey, thats just how its gonna hafta be. Not going to break the rules by being so impolite as to treat them like they are unable to do so and not going to spam the thread with hundreds (or even thousands) of links. The "prove it" technique to say that to every statement is as old as the hills. They can accept my theory or not, it is up to them. if they dont, it will not be because of a lack of information they can find on their own. they are perfectly free to discard it in their own eyes.
Note, that it IS a theory. Impossible to prove without actually going into people's brains and "reading them". I am not alone in thinking it though as the google search will provide endless others who think the same, including real world military personel.

How is that possible? If you play against the same people, on the same terrain and rules are the only thing that is different, then there is no way for their quality to not impact on the game.
Lets say someone plays a melee army, his fun will be linked to how melee friendly an edition is. And no matter how awesome friends he is with his opponents, the fact that an edition may not be friendly has a huge impact on fun he can have with the game.

I mentioned earlier in the thread that different playstyles would be more effective in different sets of rules which COULD affect which edition they preferred. this was denied yet I still maintain that belief.

You misrepresent my words. I said the rules are secondary to the other players and time spent enjoying the game through one another's company and the escape from the real world ect. To many that means far more than winning or losing which is where the rules would come in in terms of "army type" having any advantages. Thus, the rules would be secondary to those who think like this. That is not to say they would not be important or play a part.
of course, not everyone shares this mentality. Some just care about winning or they may just be far more competetive or they may simply just not be able to play with friends whose company they enjoy this much. So while my statement may be true for me, it will not be shared by everyone.
Edit: For example I have one buddy who I think has never ever won a game on his own. He has been partners with other players and his "team" won but never on his own. This unde ANY edition. Like me, he doesnt have a favorite just enjoying playing the game. He will make up his own little objectives like 1. Kill my sarge who killed his general in the previous game or protect a special building because he has decreed it a library and he wants to save knowledge or whatever else and if he succeeds, he considers it a personal victory. to him the rule set used doesnt matter so long as he gets to play.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Really? that was the only real issue i had with it. You are the absolute first person to tell me this. with life/jobs/lack of playing time, the editions run together.
You would think that instead of giving me the treatment for saying that i didnt like that single thing about 5th edition, someone woulda just told me that.
My bad on that and I thank you for telling me.
It doesnt magically make me prefer 5th edition over any other though because i still maintain my belief that the actual rules are secondary to the enjoyment had by playing the game.

MrDwhitey, thats just how its gonna hafta be. Not going to break the rules by being so impolite as to treat them like they are unable to do so and not going to spam the thread with hundreds (or even thousands) of links. The "prove it" technique to say that to every statement is as old as the hills. They can accept my theory or not, it is up to them. if they dont, it will not be because of a lack of information they can find on their own. they are perfectly free to discard it in their own eyes.
Note, that it IS a theory. Impossible to prove without actually going into people's brains and "reading them". I am not alone in thinking it though as the google search will provide endless others who think the same, including real world military personel.

No. If anything, the very idea that you think we'd buy this "I don't want to break the rules by being impolite" and "I don't want to spam thousands of links" BS is insulting in itself, so you're already failed in that respect.

Provide 3-5 or so of your better sources if you really don't want to spam. Problem solved. Wow. It's almost as if it really isn't such a big deal after all.

In all fairness, we shouldn't also forget that people that haven't even played in 7-th or 6-th might have participated in the vote. That affects the vote too as the results overlap with those who play currently but love previous editions. Thus shifting the average result towards older ones.

It is a big deal. First because it would be impolite to call them stupid. This is what i would be doing were I to provide them. They are PERFECTLY able to open up a browser to a google search page and type in wargaming and personality types or wargaming and the military o researching wargaming or any other combination of words which will bring up links. I actually found most of it boring. Here is an example of one of the links that are the LEAST boring and it nearly put me to sleep.
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/wargaming-survey-part-i-understanding-your-local-grognard.htm
i spent the weeks reading and searching through them once before. i'm not going to redo it all for some guy online who is capable of doing it himself. It is just not that important to me. Like I said, they dont have to believe me, they are perfectly free to dismiss it. Also like I said, it is only a theory many share with no irrefutable concrete proof, so it very well COULD be wrong.

I enjoyed 4e most; I found it to allow for a wider variety of useful army builds and permit a broader array of winning strategies than the dominant one-dimensional spam armies that came into favour in 5e and beyond.

 EVIL INC wrote:
I personally fieel it is insulting and impolite to demean others for preferring a n edition other than 5th.

Double standards much? You label the people who liked 5th as being the most violently vocal.

Also, providing links to support a claim that you are making as part of the topic of discussion is not impolite, in fact it's quite the opposite, it's an impolite thing to do. It is so incredibly impolite to say "I found this thing through my research, but I'm not going to substantiate it, you go do your own research until you come to the same conclusion". If that's the way research worked we'd all be fethed. The reasonable and polite thing to do is provide links.

Calling people a violently vocal minority and shoe horning them in to ill fitting boxes is an impolite thing to do, especially when you offer no credible evidence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 koooaei wrote:
In all fairness, we shouldn't also forget that people that haven't even played in 7-th or 6-th might have participated in the vote. That affects the vote too as the results overlap with those who play currently but love previous editions. Thus shifting the average result towards older ones.

Given the poll was taken 2 years after 6th was released, I'd say it'd be biased toward people who prefer 6th and 7th because people who disliked 6th enough to quit are less likely to still be on forums discussing it.

True a lot of people that played or started in 5th no longer play. When we did there was 13 for us, I remember because of the noob tournament that was made for us. Out of those 113 only 4 play now. And when talking to people from other cities on other forums most of the posters and tournament goers from 5th are gone too. And even now most people say that 5th was best and a lot didn't even play back then. It could be a local thing though.

Nope. No double standard at all. This is what we were discussing. The theory is that a more aggressive player will be more likely to play an aggresive army while a more laid back player is more likely to play a more laid back army. Likewise, an aggressive player is more likely to be more vocal in complaints while a more laid back player will be less likely tobe as vocal in complaints. The theory may be wrong but a simple google search will show I am not alone in following that line of reasoning. I'm not saying you have to follow the same line of reasoning, just asking that my right to think this be respected as I respect your right to believe your own theory on that issue. No, I'm not going to ask for proof for whatever theory you hold to because the fact that you believe it is enough to make it valid for me.

Makumba, your anecdotal evidence from your local area is indeed valid and it may be that worldwide, a higher number of players prefer 5th. In each and every case, they are correct because it is a purely personal decision. I wonder though in terms of pure numbers, how many players actually played 5th edition. then I wonder how many players actually played RT or 2nd edition. i am fairly certain there werent as many players playing the earlier editions and how many people were questioned about why they quit playing after 2nd edition or 3rd or 4th ect.... Only bringing up those questions because they demonstrate how time itself can alter such things as polls or threads on forums. Just for curiosity and to show it is not as cut and dried a question (or answer) as many may think.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Nope. No double standard at all. This is what we were discussing.

Actually that's the tangent topic you brought up, what we were discussing is what was your favourite/best edition. No one tried to label any other player until your post.

Funnily enough... no one is this thread had said ANYTHING about another player, insulting or not until your post. Everyone was talking exclusively about the game itself. You were the first one to start talking about the players, and you started off by going straight in to something impolite toward other gamers.

The theory is that a more aggressive player will be more likely to play an aggresive army while a more laid back player is more likely to play a more laid back army. Likewise, an aggressive player is more likely to be more vocal in complaints while a more laid back player will be less likely tobe as vocal in complaints. The theory may be wrong but a simple google search will show I am not alone in following that line of reasoning.

Interesting theory, you should try backing it up some time because I don't think it's true.

just asking that my right to think this be respected as I respect your right to believe your own theory on that issue.

You can believe whatever you want, I've never said otherwise. But once you make your beliefs publicly known, expect them to be publicly discussed.

No, I'm not going to ask for proof for whatever theory you hold to because the fact that you believe it is enough to make it valid for me.

That's nice... it's not very practical though. I expect what I say to be scrutinized and I will scrutinize what other people say. If I have no evidence for what I'm saying, I'll specifically state that (or if I forget and someone calls me out on it I'll correct myself).

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
In all fairness, we shouldn't also forget that people that haven't even played in 7-th or 6-th might have participated in the vote. That affects the vote too as the results overlap with those who play currently but love previous editions. Thus shifting the average result towards older ones.

Given the poll was taken 2 years after 6th was released, I'd say it'd be biased toward people who prefer 6th and 7th because people who disliked 6th enough to quit are less likely to still be on forums discussing it.

Oh no, we they are

The topic is what edition we prefer. that is what i am discussing and the also on topic discussion of which edition a player would prefer based on what type of army they play is still on topic.
You dont follow the same theory as myself and many others, good for you. Believe whatever theory you prefer.
That that that is established we can continue with the discussion.

 EVIL INC wrote:
It is a big deal. First because it would be impolite to call them stupid. This is what i would be doing were I to provide them. They are PERFECTLY able to open up a browser to a google search page and type in wargaming and personality types or wargaming and the military o researching wargaming or any other combination of words which will bring up links. I actually found most of it boring. Here is an example of one of the links that are the LEAST boring and it nearly put me to sleep.
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/wargaming-survey-part-i-understanding-your-local-grognard.htm
i spent the weeks reading and searching through them once before. i'm not going to redo it all for some guy online who is capable of doing it himself. It is just not that important to me. Like I said, they dont have to believe me, they are perfectly free to dismiss it. Also like I said, it is only a theory many share with no irrefutable concrete proof, so it very well COULD be wrong.

There you go again, still implying that citing references is, in fact, calling everyone else stupid, whereas your misguided belief that we'll all be swayed by your avoidance tactics and complete refusal to provide sources in the name 'politeness' is actually the ONLY thing you could possibly do that is actually genuinely insulting.

You also never said that people are free to dismiss anything, you said "If you choose to disregard the theory out of a lack of looking for yourself, feel free to do so". That's not "perfectly free to dismiss it", it's simply stating that anyone who disregards it hasn't got the information--information that you are, time and time again, completely and utterly unwilling to provide under the pretence of not wanting to break imaginary rules--and immediately criticises their allegedly free choice to disagree.

The onus of proof is on you. You don't hand in a university assignment and tell the professor "I would have provided references, but you know all the books and what you're looking for; you're perfectly able to find them yourself and I didn't want to be impolite and imply that you're stupid.". You don't stand up in court and state "I would love to provide evidence that my client is innocent, but you know where the evidence is kept, and as the judge you have access to all the files on this trial, so you're perfectly capable of finding the evidence yourself."

If you're too lazy to back up this 'theory' of yours with anything but your own words, then you're doing nothing but spamming the thread--something I believe you wanted to avoid earlier.

 koooaei wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
In all fairness, we shouldn't also forget that people that haven't even played in 7-th or 6-th might have participated in the vote. That affects the vote too as the results overlap with those who play currently but love previous editions. Thus shifting the average result towards older ones.

Given the poll was taken 2 years after 6th was released, I'd say it'd be biased toward people who prefer 6th and 7th because people who disliked 6th enough to quit are less likely to still be on forums discussing it.

Oh no, we they are

There's definitely a few who hang around and keep posting... I'd suggest the bulk of them wouldn't though. At least that's the logical thought. Most my mates who have quit over the years don't follow GW at all any more, they'll ask me every 6 months or so if GW have done anything new, but they don't follow themselves.

 EVIL INC wrote:
...and the also on topic discussion of which edition a player would prefer based on what type of army they play is still on topic.

Or rather, it would be, if that discussion was happening.

Repeating yourself over and over is not a discussion. So since it seems you're not prepared to carry on an actual discussion on that topic, I think it's best to let it drop.

So, back to the original topic, hmm?

I think my favourite edition would be 4th but then again, a lot of that is a bit of rose tinted nostalgia since I was playing 40k regularly during that era. I freely admit that it had issues. 5th was good too I suppose - I just think that editions from 5th onwards became a little, I don't know, soulless? Like 40k has lost some of its character and become a little bland.

 filbert wrote:
I think my favourite edition would be 4th but then again, a lot of that is a bit of rose tinted nostalgia since I was playing 40k regularly during that era. I freely admit that it had issues. 5th was good too I suppose - I just think that editions from 5th onwards became a little, I don't know, soulless? Like 40k has lost some of its character and become a little bland.

Funny, I always thought that 5th was the blandest...it had very abstracted rules, the Codex of the Cavatore era (4th/early 5th) were very bland, most notably CSM book...now it looks like 40k has gone to other extreme. It's like GW doesn't get the concept of 'middle ground'...

Call me crazy, but I actually enjoyed 6th. I liked the emphasis on shooting, warlord traits and allies. Too bad the execution wasn't as good as it could have been.

 insaniak wrote:
So, back to the original topic, hmm?

Just in case some of you missed my colleague's post. Further posts deemed OT will be deleted without warning, and it's possible other negative things may happen as a result.

 Musashi363 wrote:
Call me crazy, but I actually enjoyed 6th. I liked the emphasis on shooting, warlord traits and allies. Too bad the execution wasn't as good as it could have been.

There were parts of 6th I liked, though Allies wasn't one of them - the implementation was too ham-handed (both in terms of who could ally with whom, and especially with regard to what happened when allied ICs joined other units), and detracted heavily from the idea of disparate forces fighting for a common goal. I decided, by the end, that I wasn't especially interested in a game where Eldar, Dark Eldar, and the Inquisition could all be fighting together. I did like pre-measuring, random charge distances, and the random psychic powers. And Smash; Smash was a good one.

I think I'd go with 5th; even given all of the rules messiness (see the INAT FAQ), it was the most streamlined edition since early 3rd, in terms of how quickly you & a complete stranger could get a game finished. Given how precious time is these days, that's a big selling point. (Later 3rd got bogged down with the number of rules sources you had to carry around.)

 Janthkin wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
So, back to the original topic, hmm?

Just in case some of you missed my colleague's post. Further posts deemed OT will be deleted without warning, and it's possible other negative things may happen as a result.

 Musashi363 wrote:
Call me crazy, but I actually enjoyed 6th. I liked the emphasis on shooting, warlord traits and allies. Too bad the execution wasn't as good as it could have been.

There were parts of 6th I liked, though Allies wasn't one of them - the implementation was too ham-handed (both in terms of who could ally with whom, and especially with regard to what happened when allied ICs joined other units), and detracted heavily from the idea of disparate forces fighting for a common goal. I decided, by the end, that I wasn't especially interested in a game where Eldar, Dark Eldar, and the Inquisition could all be fighting together. I did like pre-measuring, random charge distances, and the random psychic powers. And Smash; Smash was a good one.

I think I'd go with 5th; even given all of the rules messiness (see the INAT FAQ), it was the most streamlined edition since early 3rd, in terms of how quickly you & a complete stranger could get a game finished. Given how precious time is these days, that's a big selling point. (Later 3rd got bogged down with the number of rules sources you had to carry around.)

6th had its charm. Allies and deathstars really needed to be fixed.