i was looking at the 4th, 5th and 6th editions rulebooks and thought that they were really quite fun (especially 4th and 5th) as they used to give you templates, tutorials and the models were a bit more quirky and rather interesting. i found 5th quite fun as it was a transition between the slightly older 3rd and 4th and the newer version of 40k in 6th and then the 7th, newest one.
i was wondering which one was your favourite in terms of models, codexs and rule books?

I really liked 6th Ed. but 7th is for the most part better. They might have made a mistake with jink though.

7th, so far.

Much to my own surprise, 5th.

Each edition has had its flaws, and 5E's were glaring, but relative to the mess that 6E and subsequently 7E have turned into, 5E was by far the most functional ruleset I think 40k has ever had.

5th. I started in it, and I haven't been fond of the changes since I started.

I'd say some rosy-tinted amalgamation of 4th and 5th, more of the latter than the former.

7th has a lot going for it, but it still doesn't feel as... finished yet. Like, they added a bunch, and are still sort of figuring out how everything is shaking out. They've clearly gotten some things worked out better, but I don't feel like it's anywhere near its full potential yet.

It *really*does feel like an early draft work, not a finished product. There's all a number of rules, mechanics, and missions that just don't seem to work right or that seem like were forgotten to be updated once something else was updated (e.g. Scouring/Big Guns Never Tire).

2nd for the nostalgia, probably the best era in my nerd lifetime.

5th was when I started again after 3rd, and probably needed the least work to be a really good game. But they gave us 6th instead!

Actually, I say that for the lols, I don't actually hate the 6th/7th cycle of core rules (especially 7th) I believe most issues derive from codexes and not from the BRB. I think a cull of random tables and a flattening of the power curves of things which are currently decided by chance would probably give us a really decent core, then some work on the army books to sort them out, and we'd be golden (or Simpsons yellow at least)

But I've got to give it to 2nd for the happy memories.

5th was awesome, loved it, even the crazy end of 5th edition . start of 6th was kind of ok. Hating 7th a lot. Never played other editions.

4th edition. Hands down. I've been playing since RT and 4th beats 'em all. Kept the simplicity of 3rd, but toned down assault. Added those great area terrain and terrain height rules that precluded fiddly LOS arguments. Easy, simple casualty removal.

Yeah it had some problems, but I would have preferred refining 4th edtion, rather than what we have now.

I think 6th, mainly cos I started in 5th.

In terms of books, 6th by far. Full colour hardbacks, packed with artwork, and while I only have the BRB and C:SM in physical form, all of the books from that period are great fun to look through. On the other hand, I can't stand the catalogue-style 7th books, with unit profiles and artwork replaced with 'dataslates' and photos of mediocre minis just for the hell of it.

Game-wise, I have yet to really play with any of the major changes in 7th, but barring the psychic phase they seem to build on the solid foundation of 6th, so I'll go with that.

5th gets my vote for all time favorite, so many great games and bloody and savage swirling meles

Paradigm wrote:In terms of books, 6th by far. Full colour hardbacks, packed with artwork, and while I only have the BRB and C:SM in physical form, all of the books from that period are great fun to look through.

Ugh. 6th ed books are pretty, I'll give them that, but as a functional rulebook, they're awful.

Go back and read any 4th/5th ed codex. Yes, they're not all color and the binding has probably all fallen apart, and the older stuff didn't have anywhere near as much fluff, but everything else was SO much better. There was less fluff, but it was a lot tighter, rather than the droning rambling we have now. The rules were also MUCH better formatted. You looked at the unit you wanted, and there was almost everything you needed to know about it, right there in quick-reference format.

In 6th edition, you look at the units you want, and then it tells you what upgrades it can take. Then you have to go somewhere else in the book to find out how much those upgrades cost, and then you have to go somewhere else to find out what those upgrades do, and then if it has an army-specific general rule, you then have to go to yet a fourth place in the book to figure out the actual rules. It's a nightmare. Throw in allies, dataslates, and the gradual disintegration of the codex system, and finding out what your units do is more difficult than at any other time. Yes, I'm even counting the time where you needed playing cards.

Models-wise everything keeps getting better; rules-wise my favourite was 4e. There weren't quite so many contradictions, new systems weren't getting tossed into the rules out of nowhere, the gun escalation hadn't started so infantry were valuable, and they gave you interesting/versatile Codexes you could do lots of things with viably instead of today's single-competitive-build armies.

5th edition by far. It was the most functional the game has been in my time playing it and really didn't need a lot of work to get it to its full potential. Unfortunately we got 6th edition instead.

I do like 5th because it was more basic and functional, i also like how in 4th to 5th and a bit of 6th they included a lot of info about other armies especially sm (which i have always collected) and i think thats what 7th lacks. i do like it though but i just feel its a bit disjointed from what it used to be, also 4th had the older generation of marines and it is nice to look back on it but 7th works well on the gameboard. thanks :( :(

I have fond memories about both 2nd and 3rd. All I intuitively identify with 40k was in 2nd. Gameplay though, that has to be 3rd. You could just win your games with assault. These days everything is about area denial. Meh.

I enjoyed third. I missed fourth entirely, liked 5th. Dislike 6th/7th, but only for a few core rules like jink, flyers, allies, and ran-dumb tables for traits and powers. More because of some codex specific junk.

1st ed..and 4th..I miss the days of VDR fun..Chapter approved actually made WD worth buying.

1st was Just awesome, it WAS 40k but as gameplay goes i think 5th

 Vaktathi wrote:
Much to my own surprise, 5th.

Each edition has had its flaws, and 5E's were glaring, but relative to the mess that 6E and subsequently 7E have turned into, 5E was by far the most functional ruleset I think 40k has ever had.

This.

5th I think was the best ruleset.
But for pure nostalgia, I'll go with 2nd.

yeah 2nd was cool

I really liked the look of everything in 3rd- the lore was an interesting mix of dark and funny, lots of tongue-in-cheek sort of stuff. I also really enjoyed the artwork they used back then as compared to some of the current color art (although there is a lot of good color art from 6th and 7th).

As far as the game played, I think this period was just so much better. The game was still 40k, but the number of models you fielded in a typical game wasn't so mind-numbingly high. Games now feel like a competition to see who can spend the most money on the best and biggest kits, but in 3rd things like Ork Nobz with Powerklaws were a pretty big deal. That and they had restrictions on how armies could be constructed beyond the regular army- "0-1" was a typical unit thing...and of course that wasn't so big of a deal because you weren't looking at using three or more of the same damn kit to get a desired effect. Additionally, tactics were something that were lauded even by GW! I was reading the old 3rd edition Dark Eldar book today and was surprised to see even GW admitted the army was hard to play. I loved that! I don't need to be spoon-fed notes about how a given army is so awesome and cool, I enjoy the *game* aspect being so heavily promoted as compared to the current aspect of purchasing GW miniatures.

I played a lot more 4th than 3rd (only getting into 40k around the middle-period of third and still quite young), and I like that edition a lot. I remember an article about units being able to swamp vehicles they couldn't normally destroy, accompanied by a picture of a Black Templar dreadnought (converted and everything, something you never see from GW articles now) getting horded by a ton of Kroot. The game felt very positive, 4th seemed like an attempt to improve on 3rd which has admittedly reduced diversity in the goal of greater balance. 5th was IMO 40k's hayday, and something I don't think the current version of GW will ever be able to get back (if they even want it back).

It's hard to entirely say, I liked a lot of 3rd-5th. 6th was good initially but quickly started to show the direction the game was going in, and it's been going that way ever since. Strangely, the biggest benefit of 7th is that I have seen the most consideration ever for playing previous editions. Back in 4th-5th, I didn't meet people who were interested in playing old editions but nowadays, with the $135 minimum for rules (excluding eBay), people are looking at alternatives to playing their beloved 40k.

2nd Edition was the last time it was even close to a "wargame". Everything else has been edition 3.x, and 3rd Edition just turned it into an exercise of dice-rolling and model-removing by nearly doubling movement and often halving the effective range of shooting. 6th/7th seemed like a turn in the right direction at first, but then they didn't listen to the prophet Robert Downey Jr and went full... well, full Titan and full Challenge and full Fortification and full Flyer etc. And Centurions. Can't forgive that.

For fluff, 2nd. 3rd started nice but then came Codex: Necrons with that tiresome ancient astronauts narrative, pushing the Old Ones into every single story. Rules-wise it was a simplification, but in retrospect, I'd say it was a necessary one. I didn't play 4th edition. 5th was probably the most "stable" edition so far, but what it had in (apparent) balance it lacked in diversity: You could count the number of viable army builds with one hand, and you'd still have fingers left. By the end of its run 5th felt like a dead end. 6th started showing promise but it only took GW two codices to wreck it for good. Add the oh-so-exploitable allies rule and you have the recipe for disaster. Fluff quality improved slightly from 5th, but I don't think anyone was paying attention. 7th fixed some of the glaring issues of 6th (psychic powers, allies) toned down others (D Weapons) and, for the most part, consolidated the good ideas (fliers, formations) as well as the bad ones (random tables galore). Also introduced that Unbound nonsense, which I liken to playing 40k in debug mode. Fluffwise, 7th is the Ctrl+C Ctrl+V edition so far.

So, what edition emerges as winner IMHO?. 7th (yay, don't shoot). GW has reached the point where their game is as messy and confusing as the fluff it's based upon, and it's a really, really good thing. Like in the crazy old days of 2nd edition, utter chaos has paradoxically brought a semblance of balance to the game: For the first time in a long while, I can walk into the LGS and fight a different army everytime, not mere carbon copies of the be-all-end-all netlist de jour.

5th was the one I had the most fun with. 4th was pretty good. 6th was okay and it probably would have grown onto me if it weren't for escalation. 7th just felt sloppy from the get go for me, unbound lists I feel is just an attempt to force apoc list building into regular 40k, not a fan of the psychic phase...

5th, 4th and early 6th felt fairly sweet and to the point (random psychic powers and warlord traits were meh but other than that, okay) and allowed the larger games I loved (1850-2500) to be played and finished in a reasonable amount of time. Now it feels like a lot of 1500 point games take as long as 2000 point games back in 5th if not longer. Too much excess.

I started in VERY late 3rd. 5th Edition was the best version. The Blood angels codex kinda ruined it, but it was the best version, main book wise.

7th is my favorite. It's got some missteps and some gak I hate, but for the most part its a ton of fun

Out of the editions I've played (3rd, 5th, 6th and 7th) I actually like 7th the best. If 8th (when it eventually drops) fixes the few things I think need fixing with 7th then that's even better.

 Ailaros wrote:

Paradigm wrote:In terms of books, 6th by far. Full colour hardbacks, packed with artwork, and while I only have the BRB and C:SM in physical form, all of the books from that period are great fun to look through.

Ugh. 6th ed books are pretty, I'll give them that, but as a functional rulebook, they're awful.

Go back and read any 4th/5th ed codex. Yes, they're not all color and the binding has probably all fallen apart, and the older stuff didn't have anywhere near as much fluff, but everything else was SO much better. There was less fluff, but it was a lot tighter, rather than the droning rambling we have now. The rules were also MUCH better formatted. You looked at the unit you wanted, and there was almost everything you needed to know about it, right there in quick-reference format.

In 6th edition, you look at the units you want, and then it tells you what upgrades it can take. Then you have to go somewhere else in the book to find out how much those upgrades cost, and then you have to go somewhere else to find out what those upgrades do, and then if it has an army-specific general rule, you then have to go to yet a fourth place in the book to figure out the actual rules. It's a nightmare. Throw in allies, dataslates, and the gradual disintegration of the codex system, and finding out what your units do is more difficult than at any other time. Yes, I'm even counting the time where you needed playing cards.

Fair enough. My thinking is that if I'm paying GW prices for a book, the first thing I want is a quality produced item. Between apps like Battlescribe and just memory, the rules in a book I rarely read more than once or twice, whereas fluff and artwork I end up going back to again and again. Same with the one BRB I have, the rules section hardly gets used (have a mini-one for that) and the fluff and gallery sections are read far more often.

If these were cheap purely gaming aids I'd agree the older layout was better, but in all honesty rules are the least of my concern when looking at these books.

Wow, tons of replies, i agree 2nd was fun and the early one 2 to 3 were really fun as far as fluff but 5th was good as it wasn't to complex on the gaming side but still fun. another good thing about 5th is the do it yourself aspect with the bunker plans and blast markers. i wish the hobby book in 7th had more diy and scratch building ideas but i guess games workshop doesn't really want to encourage us not to buy their products. thanks guys

I started in 2nd edition, when games were incredibly time consuming due to almost everything being done on an individual basis rather than throwing a handful of dice.

3rd edition is where the game lore and art began to darken and efficiency was worked in. Game times were majorly reduced.

4th edition was my favorite. 3rd edition started drifting toward unnessecary micromanaging again and 4th tacked it back down. wound allocation was the most intuitive, rules for cover saved a lot of time and allowed a lot of creative liberty when sculpting your models. Efficiency was at its peak. Game play was quick and enjoyable.

5th edition with the advent of TLoS shattered a lot of the imaginative aspect of the game. "Is that unit of prone snipers peeking over that low wall to fire, and be fired at? Nope, according to the 5th ed rules, they are literally sliding around the battlefield on their bellies, permanently as you see them." Model location is no longer represented by their base, assumed to be using available cover. Now the permanent pose of the model is always what that model is doing... Stupid, counter intuitive, unimaginative and lame.

6th was some minor changes to 5th. Plus flyers.

7th is some minor changes to 6th.

My primary issues with 4th were that terrain was all too often used to block LoS completely (oh man 2" of woods? can't see me!), consolidation into new combats meant some assault units *never* got shot at (particularly with the above), and non-Skimmer vehicles were absolute garbage (and non-skimmer Transports were more dangerous than beneficial) while Skimmers were astoundingly good, and blast weapons were awkward.

5E with 4E's wound allocation and VP rules, 6E/7E's Rapid Fire weapon mechanic, and some modified 6E snapshot rules, I think would make the best all-round ruleset personally.

 Azreal13 wrote:
2nd for the nostalgia, probably the best era in my nerd lifetime.

5th was when I started again after 3rd, and probably needed the least work to be a really good game. But they gave us 6th instead!

Actually, I say that for the lols, I don't actually hate the 6th/7th cycle of core rules (especially 7th) I believe most issues derive from codexes and not from the BRB. I think a cull of random tables and a flattening of the power curves of things which are currently decided by chance would probably give us a really decent core, then some work on the army books to sort them out, and we'd be golden (or Simpsons yellow at least)

But I've got to give it to 2nd for the happy memories.

Same here. I was just out of high school when I started during 2nd Edition. So, yeah, it has that "age of innocence" nostalgia to it, before I had to become a serious grown up with a serious grown up job and serious grown up hobbies.

Well, I think I've managed the serious grown up job part, at least, but probably not the other two yet.

I was gonna say 4th... but then i remembered all those Skimmer Moving Fast Falcons with Harlequins in it or Fire Dragons... so i have to go with 7th, and waiting for Kelly's eldar to be toned down.

I really don't enjoy 5th that much looking back in hindsight. I remembered fuming about the loss of Area Terrain and what we gonna do with all the forests at our place. And then it all went down hill after Space Wolves which is pretty early in the edition.

 Archonate wrote:
5th edition with the advent of TLoS shattered a lot of the imaginative aspect of the game. "Is that unit of prone snipers peeking over that low wall to fire, and be fired at? Nope, according to the 5th ed rules, they are literally sliding around the battlefield on their bellies, permanently as you see them." Model location is no longer represented by their base, assumed to be using available cover. Now the permanent pose of the model is always what that model is doing... Stupid, counter intuitive, unimaginative and lame..

You're misremembering here. 5th edition did not introduce TLOS... TLOS has formed the core of the LOS rules since Rogue Trader. Your prone snipers had that exact same problem in every prior edition as well, aside from during 4th edition if that low wall was part of a piece of area terrain.

I started in late third edition and Fourth was a big improvement. Sixth was a big step forward with aircraft and overwatch. 7th is showing
a large step in sophistication of the game which is a good thing I think, but I had to type out (in abbreviated translation) a bunch of the special rules as
I could never remember them all and it took four pages - laminated. I'm more of a painter/collector than a player, but I think once I get back to playing I will
enjoy 7th. It's GW's game, so I go with the flow - it is what it is and the models are very cool. As for all the tables, Warlord traits, psykic phase,
mini objectives and all that, ton of details to deal with. Probably will need a cyborg's assistance for 10th edition. 4th was probably my favorite, just for the relative
simplicity. Maybe I'll cut and paste my favorite bits from the past editions and make my own rulebook.

I do a lot more modelling than fighting but i still make sure to play quite often, apart from the aircraft 6th wasn't my favourite :( but the book was laid out nicely and had a nice feel. i like 4th for a quick, functional game but 7th gives a whole new dimension (just a lot more remembering) and makes it feel more real

 insaniak wrote:

 Archonate wrote:
5th edition with the advent of TLoS shattered a lot of the imaginative aspect of the game. "Is that unit of prone snipers peeking over that low wall to fire, and be fired at? Nope, according to the 5th ed rules, they are literally sliding around the battlefield on their bellies, permanently as you see them." Model location is no longer represented by their base, assumed to be using available cover. Now the permanent pose of the model is always what that model is doing... Stupid, counter intuitive, unimaginative and lame..

You're misremembering here. 5th edition did not introduce TLOS... TLOS has formed the core of the LOS rules since Rogue Trader. Your prone snipers had that exact same problem in every prior edition as well, aside from during 4th edition if that low wall was part of a piece of area terrain.

Are you sure? I remember rulebooks from 2nd all the way thru 4th saying things like "You needn't assume that the static pose of your models represents exactly what your troops are doing at all times. Sometimes they are standing despite their crouching pose, and visa versa. Also, they are assumed to be making the best use of surrounding cover."
I remember 5th ed being the rulebook that more or less said "That static pose of your models is exactly what they're doing at all times when it comes to LoS."
I remember because it was (and still is) a very upsetting rule imo. I think it encourages the cheesy and exploitative rather than creative and fun modelling practices. I used to see a lot of incredible, dramatic stuff as far as model conversion, especially in 4th. It all disappeared in 5th because of TLoS.

Right. Nobody talked about modelling for advantage until TLoS returned.

There was a joke at my FLGS about the "crouchafex" which, in days of old was the least targetable monstrous creature, until 4th came along. When 5th came by, there was speculation that the crouchafex would return, but it never did (the guy had moved away).

Being able to set terrain as size one, and having infantry as size two, so able to see and shoot over it, but also take a cover save made things a lot more straightforward than having to go model by model to see who gets to shoot or get shot at, with which cover.

 Archonate wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Archonate wrote:
5th edition with the advent of TLoS shattered a lot of the imaginative aspect of the game. "Is that unit of prone snipers peeking over that low wall to fire, and be fired at? Nope, according to the 5th ed rules, they are literally sliding around the battlefield on their bellies, permanently as you see them." Model location is no longer represented by their base, assumed to be using available cover. Now the permanent pose of the model is always what that model is doing... Stupid, counter intuitive, unimaginative and lame..

You're misremembering here. 5th edition did not introduce TLOS... TLOS has formed the core of the LOS rules since Rogue Trader. Your prone snipers had that exact same problem in every prior edition as well, aside from during 4th edition if that low wall was part of a piece of area terrain.

Are you sure? I remember rulebooks from 2nd all the way thru 4th saying things like "You needn't assume that the static pose of your models represents exactly what your troops are doing at all times. Sometimes they are standing despite their crouching pose, and visa versa. Also, they are assumed to be making the best use of surrounding cover."
I remember 5th ed being the rulebook that more or less said "That static pose of your models is exactly what they're doing at all times when it comes to LoS."
I remember because it was (and still is) a very upsetting rule imo. I think it encourages the cheesy and exploitative rather than creative and fun modelling practices. I used to see a lot of incredible, dramatic stuff as far as model conversion, especially in 4th. It all disappeared in 5th because of TLoS.

I have a Space Marine with a boltgun that might be considered modelling for advantage nowadays. He's got no lower legs or feet, which was a cost-saving choice more than anything else. See, I had these tanks, and the leftover parts included a bit with a Space Marine standing up out of a cupola. So I took the legs from that, carefully took off the part attaching it to the cupola to leave only legs, and added a spare torso, arms, backpack, weapon, shoulderpads, and head. I then painted his base to look like a swamp as best I could (sinking thigh-deep into the swamp as it were). Judging by some of the looks I got when that model took to the field, some people probably thought I was MFA. Of course, those looks stopped when he got removed as one of the first casualties and I never nitpicked about being able to see him or not.

That was in third, when I was enough of a newb that I didn't even have the main rulebook and my knowledge of the rules came primarily from other people telling me during games.

The best skirmish game for 40k GW released was 2nd edition.
(The original 3rd edition skirmish game the studio were not allowed to release would have been my all time favorite.)

The best battle game GW released for the 40k universe was Epic Armageddon.

The series of hacked up skirmish games patched up with stupid amounts of extra rules ,(to sell even more minatures,) 3rd to 7th edition 40k, do not appeal to me much at all.

I prefer complex game play to complicated rules.

yeah, second was best for skirmishes but 7th is actually quite good for ranged weapons (excluding line of sight) and there are loads of special rules (especially for space marines) that are quite helpful. it does make games quite difficult and tedious but it is fun to work your way through rules!

Wow. People really think 2nd edition was "simpler" or "quicker"? You had to roll on random tables for pretty much everything (vehicle damage in particular was a chore). Many weapons (vortex 'nades, for instance) created persistent effects that had to be determined once per turn. And don't get me started on "sustained fire" and its dedicated set of die. Really, I think we're romanticising 2nd edition a bit too much.

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:
Wow. People really think 2nd edition was "simpler" or "quicker"? You had to roll on random tables for pretty much everything (vehicle damage in particular was a chore). Many weapons (vortex 'nades, for instance) created persistent effects that had to be determined once per turn. And don't get me started on "sustained fire" and its dedicated set of die. Really, I think we're romanticising 2nd edition a bit too much.

Indeed.

There must be a guy out there making a tidy profit in these-

 Archonate wrote:

Are you sure? I remember rulebooks from 2nd all the way thru 4th saying things like "You needn't assume that the static pose of your models represents exactly what your troops are doing at all times. Sometimes they are standing despite their crouching pose, and visa versa. Also, they are assumed to be making the best use of surrounding cover."
I remember 5th ed being the rulebook that more or less said "That static pose of your models is exactly what they're doing at all times when it comes to LoS."

Absolutely sure. From Rogue Trader through to 5th edition, they all used LOS drawn from the model's eyes, with no allowance for the model's pose to be ignored.

4th edition just added in the abstraction for when area terrain or close combats were involved.

I remember because it was (and still is) a very upsetting rule imo. I think it encourages the cheesy and exploitative rather than creative and fun modelling practices. I used to see a lot of incredible, dramatic stuff as far as model conversion, especially in 4th. It all disappeared in 5th because of TLoS.

So people said when 5th edition was released. The thing is, those exact same things were being said in every prior edition as well. The much-maligned 'crouching wraithlord' that was held up in 5th edition as the epitome of why TLOS is a bad thing? People were complaining about that being possible when I started playing way, way back in 1994, when they were still just called Dreadnoughts.

Bah, I think 2nd edition works perfectly fine for what it's best at- games of 1000-1500pts at most, where a standard force looks something like this potential Space marine force: a character or two, either independent or part of a squad, couple of squads for the bulk of the force, a bike squad, a single landspeeder or dreadnought depending on player taste, and maybe a vehicle or two-this includes any transport like a rhino or razorback for the earlier mentioned squads.

The problem is that even back in 2nd edition GW started trying to get us to play big 2000+ point games all the time, which while cool to look at on the table, they are where the granular nature of 2nd edition breaks down into a slog of work and takes too long.

2nd edition is absolutely awesome if you use it as a true Necromunda-style game (unsurprising, as Necro uses 3nd ed rules), where you eliminate squad cohesion, buy models individually, and play at very small 500-750 point games. Then it's basically like playing Necromunda, but instead of just normal humans, you get to use all the evocative forces seen in the wider 40K universe, like Space Marines and Squats and Eldar, without trying to balance them against a gang of human thugs like Necromunda tried to do a couple of times. Basically Kill Team, before Kill Team was ever a thing.

So I would have to say that I love 2nd edition for that, and for large-force gaming I love playing in what was the middle of 4th edition. It keeps the speed of 3rd, but polishes the assault phase, and I get to use all those cool 2nd tier codex forces, like Space Wolves Thirteenth Company, or Kroot Mercs back when Kroot could throw more dice at an assault than Orks!.

I don't ever recall situation back then where my friends or myself counted a model absolutely as it was sculpted. We just took that for granted. Hell, games like Necromunda and Inquisitor plainly state that's how they intended the rules to be interpreted, with drawings to illustrate everything plainly.

That being said, Area terrain improves things greatly as long as you aren't dealing with donkey-cave opponents. My buddy and I even ported such rules into games without them, like AT-43 and Confrontation Age of Ragnorok, and it made things so much easier.

I first played in 5th edition. I did not enjoy the experience, and after two games, I left to go play fantasy.
I rejoined halfway through 6th, and I liked what I saw. I really got into the game, and that was when I built my armies up.
Now that it's 7th, I'm having even more fun, especially since the physic phase actually makes physic powers manageable.
If I were to play competitively, I don't know if I'd like 7th as much. But I play for fun, so it's all good.

second did have a lot of weird tables but 7th has 4 phases and quite a few odd rules and a heck of a lot more tiny steps to do than say 5th edition. i do get your point though

Every edition I've played had its pros and cons.

-5th was straightforward, but it was too much abstracted, with silliness like "1 guys nose showing -> entire squad is shot to bits". Wound allocation was horrible. Cover rules (as they were interpreted) gave 4+ cover in almost every situation, making Orks ridiculously resilient. Book missions were too simple.

-6th introduced lots of good ideas which were often poorly thought of. Rules were sloppily written, with huge errata released. Book missions became more complicated, but alas also less playable and annoying to set up (my biggest gripe about 6th/7th edition).

-7th is like 6th but better in nearly every respect. Unfortunately some annoying things in 6th were not addressed at all. I am also of opinion that the biggest problem of 7th edition is the Codeci, not the BRB. The army books have too much silly crap like Warp Storm and Mob rule.

-I didn't play 4th but what I've read about it, doesn't sound like I'd have liked it as much as 5th or 7th.

good ideas, 4th was ok but it was a bit construed in parts. overall i liked it (apart from the space marine codex layout although i do miss terminator command squads :') )as it was fun and i liked the way they included a lot ( i mean a lot) of fluff

Did 2nd edition have over complicated rules, and some elements that were overpowered?
Yes .
BUT the model count was lower, as it was a skirmish game, so model focused rules made sense.
And the complicated rules delivered much deeper game play in terms of tactical options and characterful interaction.

3rd edition to 7th edition 40k was up scaled to a battle game
This means it should be about detailed UNIT interaction.But it is not, so the rules are over complicated and deliver very restricted game play.

All editions of 40k have been over complicated.
And they get more over complicated each edition of the game.

Its almost like the rules are written to sell the latest new shiney minatures, and not much thought is given to game play at all....

There were a lot more decisions to be made in 2nd, for all of the random (you had to commit to charges before other movement or shooting, so no cracking off a few rounds and seeing who needs a kicking later on down the line, overwatch was a genuine trade off, rather than extra free shooting and another tax on assault focussed armies)

I guess I felt a lot more like I played a game in 2nd (and 5th I suppose as well) whereas I more feel like I participate in a game of 6th+.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I guess I felt a lot more like I played a game in 2nd (and 5th I suppose as well) whereas I more feel like I participate in a game of 6th+.

I honestly have no idea where you are coming from. On the not so rare occasions I get kurbstomped (all my games seem to be me kurbstomping of being kurbstomped), I don't feel like I'm just there to participate in my opponent's win, which is the only time I can see someone feeling like this.

5th was a pain for me as i only had tau back then ><
and not the mass spam broadside build.

6th was a blur and 7th is mediocre but mostly playable.

Played 3rd, 5th, 6th and 7th. Have to say the most fun games came playing in 5th edition. Could play a game much quicker than now with less rules, tables, missions, phases etc. List building was much easier too. It's challenging trying to keep up with new formations and data slates. For me at least, I preferred 5th over 6/7 due to simplicity.

5th really brought me (back) into the game fluff-wise, when they (briefly) stopped taking everything so damn serious (sadly, they've lapsed back for the most part).

7th is a more enjoyable set of rules though. It rolls well for me, game after game after game.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I guess I felt a lot more like I played a game in 2nd (and 5th I suppose as well) whereas I more feel like I participate in a game of 6th+.

I honestly have no idea where you are coming from. On the not so rare occasions I get kurbstomped (all my games seem to be me kurbstomping of being kurbstomped), I don't feel like I'm just there to participate in my opponent's win, which is the only time I can see someone feeling like this.

That isn't what I meant at all.

One of my biggest issues with modern 40K is the constant removal of player input and decision making in lieu of rolling for stuff on a table (as a daemons player I'm even more acutely aware of this I guess) and while there were lots of tables in 2nd, they were a consequence of your actions, not a replacement, in many instances.

If I lose, I'd like to think it's because I've made bad/wrong decisions, not because I rolled a 5 when I needed 7+ on 2D6 (and that exact thing has essentially happened to me with the "hilarious" warp storm table.)

 Azreal13 wrote:
There were a lot more decisions to be made in 2nd, for all of the random (you had to commit to charges before other movement or shooting, so no cracking off a few rounds and seeing who needs a kicking later on down the line, overwatch was a genuine trade off, rather than extra free shooting and another tax on assault focussed armies)

I guess I felt a lot more like I played a game in 2nd (and 5th I suppose as well) whereas I more feel like I participate in a game of 6th+.

Spot on. My complain was about players who mistakenly take 2nd for a fast and furious romp when in fact playing a 2000 points game was an evening-long affair but yes, I agree that the game was far more in-depth than it is now. It was the kind of game in which when or where you used an ability (like unmasking the Callidus Assassing hidden in one of the enemy squads, headbutting a tank - Ghaz's adamantium skull was crazy good back then- or dropping a grenade) could decide the entire game. It's not like current 40k plays on autopilot, but the true game-changing decisions are usually made outside the gaming table. I don't think 6th+ are to blame for that, though. The trend started back in 3rd already, and has been going on for decades now.

Oh god! The vehicle rules! Deciding if you'd hit that rock in two turns time if you accelerated to fast this turn!

I guess the problem is on the one hand having players make meaningful decisions, complete with sacrifices, and on the other hand, making things just sort of absurdly complex. 2nd edition was annoying in part because it sometimes looked like you, the player, were having to do things that the models themselves should have been able to figure out on their own. Like, do I need to do EVERYTHING for you?

It's one of the reasons I like the old target prioritization rules. It gives the models themselves a bit of a mind of their own, rather than being perfect psychic slaves that do exactly what you want them to do, even if it's to their own impending, bloody detriment. I also like how 40k used to have rules where squads could just run away if they were faced with impossible situations. You know, before everything got fearless for no reason.

It is sad that new overwatch is "here, roll some extra dice" instead of "which of two ways would you like to shoot this turn? You can only pick one..."

I still remember that time when a driverless warbike ran over and killed Ahriman

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:
I still remember that time when a driverless warbike ran over and killed Ahriman

I remember random stuff that was fun... Guys set ablaze by flamers, running randomly around the table setting fire to anyone they bumped into. Balls of plasma from grenades suddenly doubling in size. That Captain rolling for his Displacer Field to escape that Vortex grenade, and not rolling quite enough scatter distance to escape it...

Now I just get to roll to find out if my Warlord gets a special ability that he already had to begin with. Yay.

Oh, that was aimed at Azreal's mention of the crazy 2nd ed. vehicle rules - yep, a well-placed shot could kill a vehicle's driver back then.

Honestly I think 3rd cut some of the most annoying bits of 2nd edition, but also took away some of its most interesting ideas. Going back to vehicles, they could potentially move faster in 2nd than in 3rd but their manoeuvrability was limited, and so firing arcs, sponsons and turrets mattered, as did armor facings. And, like Alairos mentioned, it's good we have Overwatch now but I'd much prefer it was activated by the player - like jink or run - instead of automated.

Not so sure if I'd want those 4th edition targeting rules back, though. Well, at least I'd be hiding the cream of my army behind a curtain of gretchin




Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Insaniak - There was a lot of counter-intuitive randomness in 2nd, but also a lot of cool atmospheric details I'd love to have back. Like a tank spinning after snapping a track, perhaps leaving its soft sides exposed to the enemy guns - It's random, too, but somehow feels more "real" than rolling to find what's your commander's mood for today or if you accidentally step into a nest of psychic wasps.

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:
Oh, that was aimed at Azreal's mention of the crazy 2nd ed. vehicle rules - yep, a well-placed shot could kill a vehicle's driver back then.

Honestly I think 3rd cut some of the most annoying bits of 2nd edition, but also took away some of its most interesting ideas. Going back to vehicles, they could potentially move faster in 2nd than in 3rd but their manoeuvrability was limited, and so firing arcs, sponsons and turrets mattered, as did armor facings. And, like Alairos mentioned, it's good we have Overwatch now but I'd much prefer it was activated by the player - like jink or run - instead of automated.

Not so sure if I'd want those 4th edition targeting rules back, though. Well, at least I'd be hiding the cream of my army behind a curtain of gretchin




Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Insaniak - There was a lot of counter-intuitive randomness in 2nd, but also a lot of cool atmospheric details I'd love to have back. Like a tank spinning after snapping a track, perhaps leaving its soft sides exposed to the enemy guns - It's random, too, but somehow feels more "real" than rolling to find what's your commander's mood for today or if you accidentally step into a nest of psychic wasps.

Would cobbling together all the good from all the edition make anything worthwhile?

Good reasons guys, i like the ideas. the earlier editions (specifically 3rd, 4th and maybe 5th) i found were better for having a smaller battle and still feeling like you had an afternoons worth while but in 7th i find that with all the special rules it only feels worth doing with 1500 point or more. this is just what i feel as i used to play 1 or 2 hour long battles with my friends at 500 to 1000 points each (i feel it was better for space marines )

But 2nd ed had worse balance between the haves and have-nots than any edition since.

Very true. 2nd could be both frustratingly stupid and crazy fun. Its main advantage over other editions was its quirky personality. Each edition since then has increasingly lost the crazy and kept the frustrating.

I know I'm probably in the minority here, but 7th edition is my favorite edition that I've actually played. I started playing in 5th, and by the end of it, I was pretty burnt out. It felt like I always wound up fighting the enemy's parking lot rather than their actual soldiers, and every new book felt like it was intentionally designed to be outright better than the one that came before it.

6th was too chaotic. This is owed, I think, largely to the fact that two chaos books came out during that edition, but the sheer amount of STUFF you had to roll for and keep track of in a game was offputting.

7th edition didn't really do away with the randomness of 6th, but it just seems to work for me for some reason. Maybe it's because I appreciate the "ask your opponent what kind of game sounds fun," aspect as it was something I was already doing in 5th. Vehicles are easier to deal with, and my eldar are now better able to deal with them than in 5th, I like the splats (though I dislike how pricey they are to obtain), and enjoy that the new release method allows for things like harlequins to come out.

That said, I hear good things about 3rd and 4th and have the books for each. If I had to throw all the editions into a blender to try and extract the best parts, 3rd or 4th would likely be my core. Though I wonder if 7th might be significantly improved by simply clarifying a few rules and removing some of the randomness of its charts....

Wyldhunt wrote:


7th edition didn't really do away with the randomness of 6th, but it just seems to work for me for some reason. Maybe it's because I appreciate the "ask your opponent what kind of game sounds fun," aspect as it was something I was already doing in 5th. Vehicles are easier to deal with, and my eldar are now better able to deal with them than in 5th

It should be pointed out that 5th was the only edition where Skimmers did not have massive advantages over non-skimmers and the only edition where Eldar were not considered one of the top 3 armies for most of the edition.

Those are fair points, Vaktathi, but my point stands. As someone who got into both the game and eldar in 5th, the vehicle spam could be pretty miserable. The fact that I never really used a seer council meant that I was reduced to using fire dragons, BS3 storm guardians, and very expensive wraith guard to deal with armor. The guns on our vehicles were too unreliable when it came to popping vehicles, and shooting them basically meant we'd given up our chance at having a cover save.

The specialist unit thing that eldar had going on meant that we couldn't really sprinkle anti-tank weapons into a unit the way marines could, so losing a single dedicated anti-tank unit meant that you probably didn't have a lot left in your army that had any chance at all of hurting a vehicle. Unless you were spamming dragons.

So yeah, 5th edition got pretty rough for me by the end. I flat out refused to play IG players most of the time simply because it was a guaranteed mismatch unless they were doing infantry spam. Also, wound allocation was silly.

Edit: Also, my understanding is that eldar were pretty mediocre for most of 4th until they got their new book at which point they were the hackzorz. For a few months. And then 5th happened

Eldar were pretty solid all the way through 4th, just different. In the first half of 4E, they had starcannon spam (starcannons were 3 shots and *way* cheaper) along with Craftworld Eldar things like Alaitoc disruption tables that had pre-game effects that could be pretty strong, and their vehicles were pretty solid. The 4E book came out in 2006, and was around for about half of 4E's lifetime (the book came out IIRC oct 2006, 5E came out July 2008, so about half the edition's lifespan) and dropped the previous "strong" builds (no more disruption tables, nerfed Starcannons & Wraithlords) but dramatically improved the vehicles and infantry in general along with the characters and psyker capabilities along with the creation of a plastic Wave Serpent kit and the re-inclusion of Harlequins.

5E definitely had some issues, I continually find myself surprised at finding it my favorite edition because it's issues were so notable, it's just that the issues of other editions seem to much worse that it makes 5E's bearable

 Vaktathi wrote:
Eldar were pretty solid all the way through 4th, just different. In the first half of 4E, they had starcannon spam (starcannons were 3 shots and *way* cheaper) along with Craftworld Eldar things like Alaitoc disruption tables that had pre-game effects that could be pretty strong, and their vehicles were pretty solid.

Eldar weren't pretty solid. Eldar were utterly broken (way, way, way, way worse than current Serpent-spam-Eldar or 6th Edition Taudar).

There was a reason people literally build cheese-falcons to mock them. The only reason the utter travesty isn't as well remembered, is because it stood, for a while, in the shadow of GW's greatest rules-writing travesty ever, the Chaos 3.5. Codex.

With Chaos 4.0, the game returned to somewhat playable (outside of Kelly fething with it again with Nob Bikers), before 5th and the "golden age" came along.

2nd Was quite crazy and fun in parts, i found 6th to just be an updated version of 5th and 7th was totally re written, i like them all but 2nd is good for nostalgia but 7th is good for play (bigger armies only) i also remember in 3rd and 4th as i play space marines i used to love playing eldar but i don't find it as fun now.

5th. But 7th is still better than 6th because the latter was just haf assed attempt at what the former achieved, a tt anarchy. Randumb tables are crap though.

lol my post above, ofc I mixed latter and former. I was so drunk I dont even remember writing it so relatively it's not that bad, there are actual words heh.

Anyway I like some things they did for 7th, ie bringing in everything - superheavies, forgeworld, allies etc. It was quite a bad game anyway so at least you have a lot more options in a bad game now.

I like those things in theory though, I cant make myself play it. Im tired of the same ruleset 4th time in a row and still no proper overwatch/ interrupt mechanism. You cant pretend your game is tactical without it imo.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh I didnt. Lol x2, hangover ftl. Seems Im smarter when drunk, going to drink asap.

hah, i agree with you plumbumbarum about superheavies

I actually liked 6th quite a bit, it just seemed like it had every working right for once. I know others hated 6th, but got me everything in it just clicked. 7th seems like a jump to the left, when we really needed a step to the right. : )

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I actually liked 6th quite a bit, it just seemed like it had every working right for once. I know others hated 6th, but got me everything in it just clicked. 7th seems like a jump to the left, when we really needed a step to the right. : )

SJ

Maybe 8th will give us the pelvic thrust to drive us insane?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Maybe 8th will give us the pelvic thrust to drive us insane?

I think that was 'Fine'cast.

i hope they de complicate things a bit and sort out the psychic phase when they release 8th

I also think that they should sort out some of the space marine special rules

I had the most fun in 4th edition of my entire wargaming career. It seemed like GW has just constantly gone down hill from there to the point where I really don't even recognize the game anymore.

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:
Wow. People really think 2nd edition was "simpler" or "quicker"? You had to roll on random tables for pretty much everything (vehicle damage in particular was a chore). Many weapons (vortex 'nades, for instance) created persistent effects that had to be determined once per turn. And don't get me started on "sustained fire" and its dedicated set of die. Really, I think we're romanticising 2nd edition a bit too much.

If there was one thing that 2nd Edition was not, it was quick.

Holistically a better game than 3+ Edition? Easily. But quicker, absolutely not. Psychics alone were a huge time sink. To the point that most tournaments I remember banned psyker characters out of the interests of time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
But 2nd ed had worse balance between the haves and have-nots than any edition since.

Yeah, but that was entirely an external problem (Codex Books) rather than an internal problem (the rulese).

2nd Edition needed an overhaul. What it got was completely thrown out and replaced with 3rd Hammer 40K, which just suffers from horrific internal imbalance, and has dragged down every subsequent edition with it.

The problem with 2nd Edition was not understanding the ramifications of all the wacky stuff that had come out of Rogue Trader. A 2.5th Edition could have simply introduced better balanced Codex books and toned down Herohammer with more reasonable statlines. 3rd Edition's entire ruleset ensured that there'd never even be a potential for balance because of its wonky mechanics. Ever wondered why every edition it's either the shooty armies or the choppy armies complaining that they've been nerfed? That's because of 3rd Edition. 2nd Edition didn't have any choppy armies. Some units were choppy, but they had to be used smartly, and every army had the ability to shoot, which meant the game wasn't trying to balance one army using medieval tactics and one using sci-fi tactics.

i agree second needed to be re thought (less rolls on different tables) and then it would of been fine but they just replaced it in 3rd.

I am not saying third is bad by the way

To the OP:

Perhaps you should have added a poll !

I started playing at the beginning of 5th and surprisingly i prefer 7th ed.
I only play casual, though competitive, games with friends and we avoid ultra cheese lists.

I do admit i do like playing 7th for casual games but i find it works better for bigger armies. my friend and i frequently play ork v space marines and we enjoy it but i still liked 5th quite a bit.

i never played 1st or 6th but 7th is my favorite so far

LOL, its been what? A whole week since the last time this subject came up? I'm gonna hafta go back and copy the links to a bunch of these different threads o I can just paste them into the new ones as they come up so we all dont have to retype the same conversation over again each time and save us all the time and aggravation.
Each edition has good and bad points. I like RT because its the edition that got me into the game.

I started in 2nd and it still has a special place in my heart. I've been getting friends who started in 3rd or later to pick it up and give it a go.

Before anyone makes the normal quip about how long close combats take, yes, I know, but I actually found them to be pretty fun, compared to the pseudo fantasy version that appeared in 3rd.

If anyone complains about marines not being durable now, consider that they used to get their armor save modified by -1 to -5

By the same extension Terminators we freaking super durable. No iteration of Terminators have ever felt as strong as they did in 2nd.

 More Dakka wrote:
I started in 2nd and it still has a special place in my heart. I've been getting friends who started in 3rd or later to pick it up and give it a go.

Before anyone makes the normal quip about how long close combats take, yes, I know, but I actually found them to be pretty fun, compared to the pseudo fantasy version that appeared in 3rd.

If anyone complains about marines not being durable now, consider that they used to get their armor save modified by -1 to -5

By the same extension Terminators we freaking super durable. No iteration of Terminators have ever felt as strong as they did in 2nd.

I loved save modifiers, but I always thought they were all about a point too high. Basic weapons should have had Save Mod 0, Heavy Botlers, SM -1, etc. Same for assault, start at S5 with -1 save instead of S4.

Cool system, but when even lasguns are reducing Space Marine armor to a 4+, it was a bit much.

The homebrew 40k I work on from time to time uses a modified version of it.

 More Dakka wrote:
I started in 2nd and it still has a special place in my heart. I've been getting friends who started in 3rd or later to pick it up and give it a go.

Before anyone makes the normal quip about how long close combats take, yes, I know, but I actually found them to be pretty fun, compared to the pseudo fantasy version that appeared in 3rd.

If anyone complains about marines not being durable now, consider that they used to get their armor save modified by -1 to -5

By the same extension Terminators we freaking super durable. No iteration of Terminators have ever felt as strong as they did in 2nd.

Exactly, I think you will find that most players will have a special place for the edition they started in. Just because of nostalia's sake and because theat was when we were introduced to the fluff and background and it was still new and wonderfull to us without being spoiled by the "edition before was better complaints" because we never played the earlier edition to care.
After that, it all comes down to opinionand preferences.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:
Wow. People really think 2nd edition was "simpler" or "quicker"? You had to roll on random tables for pretty much everything (vehicle damage in particular was a chore). Many weapons (vortex 'nades, for instance) created persistent effects that had to be determined once per turn. And don't get me started on "sustained fire" and its dedicated set of die. Really, I think we're romanticising 2nd edition a bit too much.

If there was one thing that 2nd Edition was not, it was quick.

Holistically a better game than 3+ Edition? Easily. But quicker, absolutely not. Psychics alone were a huge time sink. To the point that most tournaments I remember banned psyker characters out of the interests of time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
But 2nd ed had worse balance between the haves and have-nots than any edition since.

Yeah, but that was entirely an external problem (Codex Books) rather than an internal problem (the rulese).

2nd Edition needed an overhaul. What it got was completely thrown out and replaced with 3rd Hammer 40K, which just suffers from horrific internal imbalance, and has dragged down every subsequent edition with it.

The problem with 2nd Edition was not understanding the ramifications of all the wacky stuff that had come out of Rogue Trader. A 2.5th Edition could have simply introduced better balanced Codex books and toned down Herohammer with more reasonable statlines. 3rd Edition's entire ruleset ensured that there'd never even be a potential for balance because of its wonky mechanics. Ever wondered why every edition it's either the shooty armies or the choppy armies complaining that they've been nerfed? That's because of 3rd Edition. 2nd Edition didn't have any choppy armies. Some units were choppy, but they had to be used smartly, and every army had the ability to shoot, which meant the game wasn't trying to balance one army using medieval tactics and one using sci-fi tactics.

I can't be objective about 2nd because I lost every match. I'll be honest about it.

 EVIL INC wrote:
LOL, its been what? A whole week since the last time this subject came up?

This is the same thread as the 'last time' it came up... It just sat for a little while with no replies.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:

Exactly, I think you will find that most players will have a special place for the edition they started in. .

To some degree, yes. I enjoyed the hell out of 2nd edition... but 5th is still my favourite.

 insaniak wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
LOL, its been what? A whole week since the last time this subject came up?

This is the same thread as the 'last time' it came up... It just sat for a little while with no replies.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:

Exactly, I think you will find that most players will have a special place for the edition they started in. .

To some degree, yes. I enjoyed the hell out of 2nd edition... but 5th is still my favourite.

Same here, I have more fond memories of 2nd (even though I started in RT) but I have to say that 5th was the best in terms of actual fun gameplay.

yeah, i posted this thread ages ago but it is really interesting to hear peoples ideas and i am glad i has gained so much momentum and has encouraged discussion (especially about 2nd and 7th) even though it did spend about 4 days with no comments.

I began in 4th, 5th is my favourite.

The heroes and psychics were a good bit of the downside of 2nd edition. Heroes were too powerful and the psychic phase was slow and cumbersome.

But the main basis of the rules were a good set of bones. They also worked great in Necromunda and Gorkamorka. I always thought 2nd ed. needed polishing, rather than an overhaul. Change how psykers worked, and redo the bloated stats and rules governing vehicles, and that would have made a great start.

Hell, lots of the main rules for 3rd edition on would have worked in 2nd, as far as I can tell.

definitely Think 2nd only needed re doing not being replaced by 3rd. i loved playing 3rd for small battles on the old style 2' by 2' board. 9i play sm and i usually played eldar)

Rogue Trader. It was more like an RPG, and all the tabletop rules and lists were custom-made

Good times.

i do admit rogue trader was fun, it had a lot more personality than the newer editions

Swimsuit, best by far

what do you mean "swimsuit" i am not familiar with it

 the clone wrote:
what do you mean "swimsuit" i am not familiar with it

As in "swimsuit edition"...

Well played there...

ok

 docdoom77 wrote:

 More Dakka wrote:
I started in 2nd and it still has a special place in my heart. I've been getting friends who started in 3rd or later to pick it up and give it a go.

Before anyone makes the normal quip about how long close combats take, yes, I know, but I actually found them to be pretty fun, compared to the pseudo fantasy version that appeared in 3rd.

If anyone complains about marines not being durable now, consider that they used to get their armor save modified by -1 to -5

By the same extension Terminators we freaking super durable. No iteration of Terminators have ever felt as strong as they did in 2nd.

I loved save modifiers, but I always thought they were all about a point too high. Basic weapons should have had Save Mod 0, Heavy Botlers, SM -1, etc. Same for assault, start at S5 with -1 save instead of S4.

Cool system, but when even lasguns are reducing Space Marine armor to a 4+, it was a bit much.

The homebrew 40k I work on from time to time uses a modified version of it.

The skirmish level I'm working on uses a combination AP and Save mod system where if the AP is equal or better, the save is negated, and if the save is better than the AP, then it is modified (by certain weapons). This cuts down on the effect that both systems have by themselves. The 2nd Edition version needlessly gimped heavily armored troops by reducing their saves from anything stronger than an autogun, but the subsequent system created bizarre inequities in the meta.

I take a lot of issue with 6th and 7th because of just how much turn 1 offense there is. Drop pod assaults, grey knights and deathwing turn 1 deep strikes, FMC's that start on the ground and suddenly are in front of your deployment zone, along with any of the 500000 guns that can reach any of your guys from the spot they deployed...reserves are easy to get and easy to get buffs to make them even easier to get, so if turn 1 wasn't insane, turn 2 is.

Games basically go like this now:
T1: MASSIVE EXPLOSIONS everywhere
T2: more explosions and deaths
T3: damaged units get close to each other and start smacking each other. Most decent players should be able to call the game result here correctly with 80ish % accuracy.
T4: There are a few tiny remnants of squads here and there.
T5: Someone gets tabled because of the massive damage output of everyone.

The games I used to experience (and wish they were still here) were like this:
T1: Units maneuver into better position, a few expensive long range heavy weapons may fire, but not move.
T2: Units maneuver more, assaulters make approaches, heavier shooting happens.
T3: The battle gets into full swing, similar to what turn 1 is nowadays.
T4: more of t3 with whittled down armies
T5: battle is pretty much settled, and objectives win the day.

We see a ton of tabling in 7e in our group. I barely ever saw any in like...3e. The only ones I can remember was when I was beating up on my necron buddy and caused his army to phase out right before the end of the game.

You have had turn one offense in all editions. Am I the only one to remember VDR in 2nd edition? We had a guy who had 4 rhinos, each with a cyclone missile launcher who would saturate his opponent's entire deployment zone by rolling them forward and firing off all of their missiles on turn one.
theissue isnt turn one offence or the edition it is. It is a basic game mechanic that has existed from the start. If you played the old epic, you would have seen the mechanic of taking turns activating units so that each turn was more of a tactical give and take instead of one player sitting around "taking it".

5th, oh god 5th. 5h ed was like an attractive bride and 7th ed is her years later, post wedding, bloated as hell with a newly developed speech impediment and the self awareness of a blind kitten.

 Crablezworth wrote:
7th ed is her years later, post wedding, bloated as hell

Yeah, well, real games have curves!

 Blacksails wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
7th ed is her years later, post wedding, bloated as hell

Yeah, well, real games have curves!

lol, made me think of this. In this case 5th ed would be to the left lol

 EVIL INC wrote:
You have had turn one offense in all editions. Am I the only one to remember VDR in 2nd edition? .

The Vehicle Design Rules were introduced in 3rd ed. 2nd ed just had a list of points costs to switch weapons around on vehicles, which nobody really used, from my experience.

My bad. got 2nd and 3rd confused. From what I saw, VDR was widely used for just the sort of shenanigans I described. I also saw a LOT of players use it to make oddball creations when their conversion urges got the best of them.
Either way, it doesnt change the fact that all of the editions had the same turn one issue.
I still feel that something along the lines of the old epic turn mechanic would be better.

It's an issue, but one that can be somewhat mitigated just by putting more terrain on the board.


Throughout the last 20 years, I've found that the vast majority of complaints about how game-breaking it is if your opponent gets first turn have come from people playing all of their games on Planet Bowling Ball.

I totally agree with you on that. It would help with that issue. That same answer would also go a long way towards making the close combat unit complaints better. Like with that though, it would help but not be a total answer.
I prefer themed set ups but they will sometimes lead towards extremes of terrain. air fields or city streets. The trade off of actions would hopefully alleviate that issue.
Of course, these sorts of things are pipe dreams.

 insaniak wrote:
It's an issue, but one that can be somewhat mitigated just by putting more terrain on the board.


Throughout the last 20 years, I've found that the vast majority of complaints about how game-breaking it is if your opponent gets first turn have come from people playing all of their games on Planet Bowling Ball.

Well, the be fair, this is something of an effect of 3rdHammer 40K and the rise of "melee armies" and "shooty armies". Back when everyone could shoot, people liked terrain. Now the shooty player wants no terrain to get in the way of his shooting because it would give an advantage to his opponent who plays a fighty army.

I agree with veteran sergeant there, i do space marines and equip them with loads of heavy weapons and generally used to obliterate my friends who played orks as the cover wasn't such an issue but now the orks just hide behind cover and out a squad at a time to get killed until eventually one of his squads gets into close combat and then he takes all his troops out of cover and goes for the weak points. not a bad strategy in itself but i find it annoying

it does need to be noted that in BOTH players get to put terrain on the table. There are varieties and types that can be used. if here is not enough "big stuff" to put on the table, feel free to model up some yourself to add to the collection.
of course, in tourneys, you dont always have that option but you usually get to pick a table both players can agree to which helps give both players a say even then.
Its something that sadly most players take for granted. they are so worried about the rules and the lists, models, conversions, edition and so forth that they simply overlook the element of terrain (and the tactics and strategies that go with it) and then blame one of the other factors when they lose. Those ho are able to effectively make use of it will find their win ratio improve drastically.

yes, i prefer to use lots of small pieces of terrain down the centre of the board as it prevents large scale troop movement and allows my smaller tactical squads to still move almost unimpeded, as well if they are small and tall like wrecked building it provides cover to my troops but doesn't usually block he line of sight to my heavy weapons.

just a quick question, what do you think of the stormraven, if you are a space marine player or play against one who uses a stormraven

niv-mizzet wrote:
I take a lot of issue with 6th and 7th because of just how much turn 1 offense there is. Drop pod assaults, grey knights and deathwing turn 1 deep strikes, FMC's that start on the ground and suddenly are in front of your deployment zone, along with any of the 500000 guns that can reach any of your guys from the spot they deployed...reserves are easy to get and easy to get buffs to make them even easier to get, so if turn 1 wasn't insane, turn 2 is.

Games basically go like this now:
T1: MASSIVE EXPLOSIONS everywhere
T2: more explosions and deaths
T3: damaged units get close to each other and start smacking each other. Most decent players should be able to call the game result here correctly with 80ish % accuracy.
T4: There are a few tiny remnants of squads here and there.
T5: Someone gets tabled because of the massive damage output of everyone.

The games I used to experience (and wish they were still here) were like this:
T1: Units maneuver into better position, a few expensive long range heavy weapons may fire, but not move.
T2: Units maneuver more, assaulters make approaches, heavier shooting happens.
T3: The battle gets into full swing, similar to what turn 1 is nowadays.
T4: more of t3 with whittled down armies
T5: battle is pretty much settled, and objectives win the day.

We see a ton of tabling in 7e in our group. I barely ever saw any in like...3e. The only ones I can remember was when I was beating up on my necron buddy and caused his army to phase out right before the end of the game.

This is a tactical failing though.

I just played my third game with necrons. The last two games, I started with nothing but a necron Warior Squad on the table with a Cryptek to lead them. I won both games. Turn one offense is cool, but if you're given no target, all you do is reveal your hand to me and give me tyhe jump on you.

So my encouragement to anyone who feels that tablings are common is to explore more unorthodox strategies to take the enemies strengths and turn it against them, like I did in those last two games. There will be a video battle report soon on the last game which you may be interested in, which illustrates the idea. I also offer this link as well for you to check out, in particular the second of the two games on this thread, the one I got pics of:

http://www.ordofanaticus.com/index.php?/topic/24089-muh-first-necron-battles/

True tablings are not common at all (at least in the newer editions). The only time it happens with anything closely resembling regularity is when the skill levels are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

i dont really keeP my things in reserve but i do go all out with hunter killer missiles and ordnance blast generally with a vindicator

 Jancoran wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:
I take a lot of issue with 6th and 7th because of just how much turn 1 offense there is. Drop pod assaults, grey knights and deathwing turn 1 deep strikes, FMC's that start on the ground and suddenly are in front of your deployment zone, along with any of the 500000 guns that can reach any of your guys from the spot they deployed...reserves are easy to get and easy to get buffs to make them even easier to get, so if turn 1 wasn't insane, turn 2 is.

Games basically go like this now:
T1: MASSIVE EXPLOSIONS everywhere
T2: more explosions and deaths
T3: damaged units get close to each other and start smacking each other. Most decent players should be able to call the game result here correctly with 80ish % accuracy.
T4: There are a few tiny remnants of squads here and there.
T5: Someone gets tabled because of the massive damage output of everyone.

The games I used to experience (and wish they were still here) were like this:
T1: Units maneuver into better position, a few expensive long range heavy weapons may fire, but not move.
T2: Units maneuver more, assaulters make approaches, heavier shooting happens.
T3: The battle gets into full swing, similar to what turn 1 is nowadays.
T4: more of t3 with whittled down armies
T5: battle is pretty much settled, and objectives win the day.

We see a ton of tabling in 7e in our group. I barely ever saw any in like...3e. The only ones I can remember was when I was beating up on my necron buddy and caused his army to phase out right before the end of the game.

This is a tactical failing though.

I just played my third game with necrons. The last two games, I started with nothing but a necron Warior Squad on the table with a Cryptek to lead them. I won both games. Turn one offense is cool, but if you're given no target, all you do is reveal your hand to me and give me tyhe jump on you.

So my encouragement to anyone who feels that tablings are common is to explore more unorthodox strategies to take the enemies strengths and turn it against them, like I did in those last two games. There will be a video battle report soon on the last game which you may be interested in, which illustrates the idea. I also offer this link as well for you to check out, in particular the second of the two games on this thread, the one I got pics of:

http://www.ordofanaticus.com/index.php?/topic/24089-muh-first-necron-battles/

Reserve games don't always work though, and not all armies can rely on resiliency to stay in the game. Reserve-gambits can often turn into a turkey shoot.

I had a game weekend before last in a tournament against Dark Eldar with my IG. Mech IG being what they are, he decided to try holding most of his units in reserve and hiding the ones he did deploy to avoid that turn-1 alpha strike.

Unfortunately, all this did was result in me destroying his deployed units even through 3+ jink saves, and then erasing most of his other units as they came on piecemeal from reserves, and at the end of turn 5 he just had a squad of hiding Incubi and maybe half a dozen Warriors left on the board, and had only killed a sentinel and a hellhound.

Now, granted, mech IG vs DE is usually a painful matchup anyway, but I've seen similar events with many other armies.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Reserve games don't always work though, and not all armies can rely on resiliency to stay in the game. Reserve-gambits can often turn into a turkey shoot.

I had a game weekend before last in a tournament against Dark Eldar with my IG. Mech IG being what they are, he decided to try holding most of his units in reserve and hiding the ones he did deploy to avoid that turn-1 alpha strike.

Unfortunately, all this did was result in me destroying his deployed units even through 3+ jink saves, and then erasing most of his other units as they came on piecemeal from reserves, and at the end of turn 5 he just had a squad of hiding Incubi and maybe half a dozen Warriors left on the board, and had only killed a sentinel and a hellhound.

Now, granted, mech IG vs DE is usually a painful matchup anyway, but I've seen similar events with many other armies.

Reserve gambits aren't always called for, but when they are, they are.

Here you say they "often" turn into turkey shoots. I can't say I share that experience. I can't say that those who play me in particular would agree either. =). its my trademark.

It may be true that someone just didn't know what they were doing. It's more likely their army simply isn't built to actually do Null Deployment. Even good Generals, excellent ones in fact, are stymied by the strategy. All the firepower in the world and all the "kill rations' and the "should's" of the world don't really help you when you simply don't have a target and thir only way to get one for a couple of rounds is to move out of good position.

Being able to null deploy starts at army building and takes a little experience, but it is extremely effective when it's called for and if your force is built with the though that you want to be able to do it whenever it becomes advisable.

You're absolutely right that it requires some experience and planning to work well. It can definitely work, but the problem is that it's not something every army can universally do well, and can backfire tremendously if something goes wrong or something mucks with reserves (e.g. officer of the fleet, warlord traits, etc).

As a response to certain types of matchups to avoid that turn 1 alpha strike, it's just not something every army can do well. Most times I've had an opponent try it against me in recent months, it has backfired, the primary exception being Necrons just because the stuff they put on the board can sit around and be largely invulnerable and I usually didn't have enough AA to deal with thee or four flyers at a time once they come on.

I think it worked a lot better in 5th personally, particularly when you could deploy nothing and not auto lose. My Eldar army ran that way, I just wouldn't deploy anything and would aim to go 2nd, and my Autarch bonuses would see just about everything come on turn 2, so my opponent missed two shooting phases and I could catch him out with my own alpha strike.

It'd be interesting to see how that would work now if you wouldn't auto-lose the first turn.

i must admit that when i play imperial guard i generally equip all my vehicles with hunter killers and generally go all out with large blast markers and try to disable the main fighting force my opponents army although i usually play space marines and when i do i dont go for a 'kill the opponent in turn 1' but rather i keep a constant flow of heavy weapon fire

Does anyone else do a 'kill the enemy on turn 1' with ig or another army?

My buddy and I prefer 4th edition rules and codex armies with plenty of cool terrain. But we are both grognards from way back in 3rd (2nd for me), so we have tons and tons of material from back then so why not use it? There are some cool gems from back in 3rd/4th that do not exist now.

Vehicle Design Rules are awesome when both opponents are friends who think on the same page. Then the overpowered aspects simply do not exist.

you have a point, i did like the vehicles rules in 3rd, another thing i like in 3rd was it was less complicated (i do think though they should of just changed rather than totally get rid of 2nd) and a lot quicker to play without all the special rules we have in 7th

what do people think about the layout of the rule books from different editions? i myself think 7th is laid out in a good way but lacks in the integration of the codexes to the rule book, i remember in 5th and 6th they talked a bit about the backstory of each race and put the pics of the models with them but now they have all been put In separate books

i think that for vehicles 5th was quite good, it wasn't to complicated and it didn't take forever to complete a turn but the strong robust tanks such as land raiders still got the right amount of protection (armour facing sides i know wasn't something new but it worked well with the other rules) and the more agile tanks of the eldar could take advantage of their speed

Only played 6 and 7th so 7th it is

7th.

I've played the game since almost the day it came out, and every edition has been an improvement. While a few details may not be as good, the game/ruleset as a whole has been a vast improvement every time.

 the clone wrote:
i think that for vehicles 5th was quite good, it wasn't to complicated and it didn't take forever to complete a turn but the strong robust tanks such as land raiders still got the right amount of protection (armour facing sides i know wasn't something new but it worked well with the other rules) and the more agile tanks of the eldar could take advantage of their speed

5th was indeed the only edition where vehicles were universally useful to every army, the primary issues with vehicles were some were still costed to their 4E balance (Eldar, Tau), and the damage table made it incredibly easy to shut down gun tanks but very hard to shut down transports, some tweaking on that would have saved a lot of headache.

Instead they brought in HP's, making vehicles functionally T/W models without any Sv's, but kept the damage table too, and bringing the Skimmer/Non-Skimmer gap back in a *huge* way.

I think 7th is good for people who havent played the game for as long but i liked 5th as it was the first to bear resemblance to the advanced game of 7th but was still simple enough to have a quick game for an hour or two

I think I already posted in this thread awhile back, but 4th was my favorite.

Started in 3rd, liked 4th, kinda liked 5th, din't like much of 6th, absolutly hate 7th.

How i miss the days where a CC army could turn the tide versus a shooty army in the late game.

Now if 5 of my guys sees any combat its been a good day.

Also liked the old GW policy, where they where geeks that mades rules for models, sometimes unbalanced, lots of times funny and fluff and they had a real touch with their fan base.

Nothing to do with the " people buys our overpriced models because they are the best on the market, rules?, rules are there just because there is a game for it" attitude they have now.

i do admit that if they dropped prices and made more personalised rules that gave the minuatures character

i know i started this thread a while ago but what is the genera consensus towards 7th edition special rules

5th edition pre grey knights

I'm guessing most all of the answers in this post are along the lines of "Nostalgia goggles? what nostalgia goggles?"

I like 7th, if functions unless you try and break it, 5th edition was pretty good, and though it seemed to be hated at the time, I liked a lot of the extra terrain rules that 6th had. Not all of them, but a lot of them.

A yes the terrain rules of 6th. I still use those if I get the chance.

My favorite topic...

I started in 2nd and have played every edition since. In my humble opinion, every edition up till 6th was 40k and made for games of 2000 points or less pitching one codex vs another. 6th started the path of "Apoc is the new 40k" which only got worse in 7th. My issue with 7th has nothing to do with the game mechanics although the Psychic Phase could be a lot smoother. My issue with 6th and 7th have everything to do with list construction and what weapons and such you can have in a 40k game.

Every edition up till 6th scaled up great for tournaments and gave us the competitive feel and a sense of strategy. 6th and 7th are pure beer and pretzel games that are really only entertaining when you play the Malestrom missions. Most everyone I know who truly enjoys 7th, enjoys it because they want the Apoc feel. They want to use the big toys and the Strength-D weapons and that's fine, it just doesn't feel like 40k.

Some of you may remember that I started a thread a while back about going back to 5th edition. I did so, to because I brought a friend into the hobby and from a cost perspective as well as a simpler rule set to learn I chose 5th. Rulebooks and the codex books for 5th are cheap and easy to come by. You don't have to worry about flyers, Forge World, Fortifications, Formations, the Psychic Phase, Detachments, Warlord Traits, and Lords of War options. The special rules in 5th edition take up 2 pages where they take up about 20 in the 7th edition book. If you want to "Forge the Narrative" in 5th edition, you can do it yourself and not worry about being the a$$ hat that uses a Reaver Titan in a small game where it doesn't belong.