What's your favourite version of the 40k rules and why? I love 6th edition myself. It took what was good about 5th edition and added back some of the rules I felt were missing, like grenades as weapons, scenery that did stuff, ect. I still play 6th out of preference but mainly because I hate 8th edition with a passion for being too simple and having horrible moral rules and stuff. It just feels like 40k dumbed down. (where did all the codex upgrades go? Where is my chapter master? why are space marines leadership 7?, ect)

5th.

It had pretty much everything where it needed to be, the only thing that needed to be adjusted was wounding vehicles as you could end up with the unkillable rhino because you keep rolling destroy weapon. Other then that i would say 5th had the most balance, mostly because apoc units and normal units were clearly defined and separated. Not like now where there is literally no difference between waht an apoc game and normal game are/were.

I can get that. I played a lot of 5th edition. Its just how grenades were treated in 5th was a little irksome to me.

 jobalisk wrote:
I can get that. I played a lot of 5th edition. Its just how grenades were treated in 5th was a little irksome to me.

Yeah which iirc, it was you get to shoot your weapons or throw a grenade, or something really dumb like that which yeah i get but the only time that mattered was if you had a super special grenade, and if that was the case, what ever you were chucking it at most likely had no way of being wounded by your other weapons.

That said i also miss the days when a LR was the big boi unit on the block.

I miss 5th too. 8th seems good, but 5th...man, I loved it!

For me it would probably be a tie between 3rd, 3.5 and 4th.
Sure there were problems with all of them but I really enjoyed them and I thing 5th would have been a much better edition if it had maintained the close combat rules from 4th. There were several issues I had with 5th but I can't recall the names of the specific rules at this point.
8th is Ok for the most part.

3rd with out a doubt, easier to play than 1st-2nd but still with a large amount of variation and books like the Eye of Terror adding in new, good, lists.

3rd. 5th was good as a ruleset but had hard busted stuff like the grey knights that were a huge negative play experience.

3rd - 5th, leaning more towards 3rd/4th as I didn't like some of the vehicle rules in 5th.

2nd with no wargear cards and an ungodly amount of terrain.

8th, because you can't beat consistent FAQs and actual point changes.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
8th, because you can't beat consistent FAQs and actual point changes.

IDK as a tsons/tzeench player im getting pretty tired of needing a BRB, 2 codexes, 2 sets of cards for strats, like 5 FAQs on hand or saved to pull up in case someone needs to see.

4th was good. I used to play a lot of forth.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
8th, because you can't beat consistent FAQs and actual point changes.

IDK as a tsons/tzeench player im getting pretty tired of needing a BRB, 2 codexes, 2 sets of cards for strats, like 5 FAQs on hand or saved to pull up in case someone needs to see.

I've literally never had those problems and many of those things are no different from previous editions.

8th.
The Rulebook, Index and Codexes are all expandable so I just cut the needed pages out and put them in a sleeved binder along with printouts of FAQs and updates.
I have needed sheets from BRB, Chapter Approved, Space Wolves, Tyrannids, Deathwatch, Astra Militarum plus ITC rules, mission sheets and scorecards in the one binder and still have sheets to spare.

5th edition, for sure.

It wasn't a perfect system, by any means, but it's the best of the 40K systems to date.

2nd Ed would run a close second, as it was an awful lot of fun under the right play conditions... but it only gets second place due to being so unwieldy at larger points values.

3rd edition followed by 8th.

I know it's my nostalgia talking, but I would say 2nd.

4th edition was really nice, especially at the Omega level. I think of it as the most adult version of the game. Lots of customization options were actively pushed, prior to the reintroduction of TLOS, the last edition with a real focus on infantry. No flyers, superheavies, and before the proliferation of high AP weapons.

I started in 4th and skipped 7th. 5th was the best from a game system perspective, 8th is best for amount of content, release schedule, FaQs, etc. 5th's biggest problem was that it got stale because of lack of updates.

The pace of updates and releases now is great, but it feels pointless because of the problems with 8th, mostly related to unit and weapon stat issues and the various ways they dumbed the game down to make 8th more appealing. I'd take 5th ed rules with 8th ed codices. I don't have any problem with superheavies, fliers, etc.

Another vote for 5th. I enjoyed 3rd through 6th though honestly. 8th is cool too but there's aspects I miss like joining units, AV, more interactive terrain and more. There's some great aspects of this edition too though so meh. Life goes on..

I loved 2nd Edition - but I have to say that 8th Edition is the best complete package so far.

I've only played 6th, 7th and 8th. Between those editions, 8th is far and away the best. 6th was non-functional(My character is immune to being killed 'cause challenges!) and 7(though better than 6th) was a dumpster fire.

This could really be a poll, no?

It could, but the reasons why are what makes it interesting.

8th but a really really close second is RT.

To be honest 8th brought me back to the game after not caring 2nd-7th.

I'll vote for the 5ed. The most consistent edition. 6ed (and end of the 5ed) put the genie out the bottle with all those super heavy units and fliers, upscaling the game out of balance. Now we have this wierd situation, when the GW pretends like the difference between bolter snd lasgun is something meaningful, but reality is - it's apoc now, and space marine is just fattier guardsman.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But I think the 8ed is good second (didn't play 1...3ed and saw 4ed too little to say sinething about it). I love lots of ideas GW put on it. Would be so awesome if they made ally works the same way as in AOS, and scrap this wierd detachment system...

I tried second for one game with a store owner, who basically annihilated me with minutes......stopped playing, sold army. came back for 3rd edition, loved it and 4th edition. Good times. Left the hobby through 5th and 6th edition so can't comment on them. Came back part way through 7th, not great. I have been loving 8th though.

So basically it would be either 3rd edition or 8th for me as they were/are both very enjoyable experiences,

Nostalgia wise would say 2nd, still play it from time to time but 8th is the best the games been. 3rd was so sad because it sucked all the fun out of the game after second and made ORKS so bland.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
8th, because you can't beat consistent FAQs and actual point changes.

IDK as a tsons/tzeench player im getting pretty tired of needing a BRB, 2 codexes, 2 sets of cards for strats, like 5 FAQs on hand or saved to pull up in case someone needs to see.

I've literally never had those problems and many of those things are no different from previous editions.

But if they are not different, then the only really effecting stuff thing would be how efficient the list comparing to back in the past and right now. If lets say my army sucks now, but it was great in 3ed, or when ever it was the time GK were good, it doesn't matter how many FAQs and point drops GW brings out, if they only make the list worse.

Same in reverse, if a list was bad in 7th ed or 6th ed, and now it is good, then the FAQ don't matter, as long as it is good now.

3rd, everything straight out the BRB. Great missions, no need for codecies. 2nd was good too on similar merits, but was overdetailed and psychic powers were bland without the Dark Millenium add on.

The out the book simplicity of 8th is cool, as are the indexes. I do get bogged down in the FAQ and additional materials, though I can see why they are popular.

I really hope 9ed will come out soon with all silly things like not working terrains and unrestricted soups fixed. Maybe even shooting phase alteration instead of igougo. That would be absolutely best edition.

At the risk of looking as if I am trying to look "old-school" I have to say Rogue Trader. I barely ever played any Rogue Trader, and I am not so sure the rule set itself was great to play, but the book itself was an amazing read and gave rise to amazing games when used the right way. Similarly, the books surrounding it were the best things GW have ever produced. The Realm of Chaos books and the Ork books were simply wonderful for fueling the imagination of an 11-year old.

8th has its warts, but I have to say I've enjoyed it most.

Overall, the one thing I've learned from my years of gaming is that there is neither a perfect ruleset nor do I need to blindly follow what someone else has put together. If I don't like it - I can change it so I do.

That, and the game plays so much better at about 1,000 - 1,250 points (with no Lords O' War).

5th edition. As a chaos daemon player the biggest enemy you could hope to face was... *dun dun dun* AREA TERRAIN!

 Daedalus81 wrote:
8th, because you can't beat consistent FAQs and actual point changes.

So you call an unstable rules system an improvement??

8th. No doubt. Soft spot for 2nd as I started there but it was an elegant mess.

8th for me.

Streamlined rulesset combined with quick release and update of army rules then add in frequent and explained points and balance changes.

Makes for a great game where the meta is constantly changing and there are counters to everything.

Rules bloat is an issue but the only way to solve that would be to go to a fully online living ruleset which I don't think they are ready to do.

I think a standard points reduction to 1500pts if needed to help speed up the game and make it more strategic but its not a big issue.

I loved 6th edition, and either 4th or 5th. I really miss initiative orders, and I liked when assault grenades meant you both struck as if charging through cover (I1) and not that the cover magically got out of your way!

I learnt to cope with 7th, but left during it for other reasons. Only just starting to get the measure of 8th, but I'm not enamoured by the mollycoddling of "everyone can hurt everything, don't worry about moving through cover, just play with you toy soldiers". not enough core rules for my liking. Don't like soldiers warping through walls and floating through floors as if they were running on open ground.

5th for me.
As said earlier, it captured the scale of 40k just right imo, had a tight enough ruleset and was very playable.

Shout out to 2nd where it all began for me. Some very happy memories of it - albeit having some really whacky rules.

Now sit down before reading on because this will shock many people. My favourite edition is 7th. While it had some (or lots) of issues the only things in it that genuinely bothered me were one grenade attack in combat which was dumb and the mess of the psychic phase.

Lots of formations were a hot mess but with the joys of playing with friends I didn't have to deal with them. The main formations and decurions I saw were the Deathwolves for my space wolves which is hands down my favourite way I've ever played them and things like the super fun Daemonkin army. Plus super speedy Aspect Eldar and Corsairs, sweet sweet Corsairs.

2nd through to 4th. Simply because of the terrain rules actually having an impact on movement, positioning etc etc.

Early 5th.

The shenanigans (wound allocation, kill points, etc) were obvious and easy to house rule if you had a mind to, and no faction was out of the running until the edition was gradually crushed under the weight of codex creep.

It was a mess but started on the right foot.

I played only one game of 5th, but then played 6th, 7th and 8th. Of the three 8th has the most tactical depth by far, it got rid of unnecessary bloat, tanks feel like tanks and the stratagem system is a very nice addon that actually gives you decisions. The psychic phase is also a vast improvement and I like the many possible addons for narrative play. Constant FAQs are also very appreciated, CSM waited nearly two whole editions in the dust, now OP units get adjusted pretty fast. Terrain is pretty useless in normal 8th though, but Cities of Death fixed that already.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I played only one game of 5th, but then played 6th, 7th and 8th. Of the three 8th has the most tactical depth by far, it got rid of unnecessary bloat, tanks feel like tanks and the stratagem system is a very nice addon that actually gives you decisions. The psychic phase is also a vast improvement and I like the many possible addons for narrative play. Constant FAQs are also very appreciated, CSM waited nearly two whole editions in the dust, now OP units get adjusted pretty fast. Terrain is pretty useless in normal 8th though, but Cities of Death fixed that already.

May I ask how did the CoD fixed terrain?
Infantry still could warp through the solid walls without doors or windows, should just a tiny bit of your soldier's hat be visible behind the terrain, and suddenly the whole squad could be targeted and killed. Oh, and should just one guy stay in the open, the other 19 lose their cover bonus. Is it fixed?

I have played 5th through 8th and have to say I enjoyed 5th the most. 6th and 7th just felt like downgrades of 5th to me, 8th is better but still not as good as 5th.

Another vote for 5th.

It had its niggles but I think it was by far the best system overall.

It was also the last system that still felt like 40k, rather than Mechwarrior, MTG or Yugioh.

3rd, 4th and 5th I think i all liked around the same. Would have to go back to some specific things i think to really get a feel again.

6th was not much fun, So much of the game was falling apart it felt. 7th i mostly just ignored. And 8th is the most unfun complexity to a game i have encounter >.<.

I think I would like to go back to a mix of 3rd, 4th and 5th with some fixing of the rules and ballance thoughts So that era may be my fav in the end.

I would have to say the time I enjoyed the most was probably early 6th ed. In the time before many codices were dropped. I think it really went down hill with its codices, and by the end was a mess with things like Knights being added in a system not well designed for their inclusion.

The edition had some issues, but it felt like a step in the right direction.

Honestly I feel the same way about most editions, except maybe 7th that edition felt like a mess from the start as it was mostly a direct port from 6th, with all the same codex related problems.

5th was a good ruleset, but was ruined by codex releases and escalation.

4th largely the same.

I feel like in general 40k has suffered from an escalation problem, more models on the table, bigger units, more units, more powers.

It kind of seems like they release an edition that fixes a lot of existing problems, then they change all the problems. 8th seems to share some of these issues as well (not that indices were completely balanced), where they didn't even get the indices truly balanced before layering more rules on top.

Have never played a game of rogue trader. 2nd was by far the most creative ruleset I played (along with 4th/5th warhammer), both by the designers and for the players to work with. 3rd to 7th seemed pretty boring though hardly ever played. 8th has some of the early creativity but models aside you are playing an entirely different game and too much of an emphasis on trying to "balance".

For me it's a mixture between 5th and 6th.

The pre-measurement, the escalation of points and overkill-models (D-templates), etc.. were something to get used to. The whole "apoc-units" problem was mostly negated at our local meta, since almost no one ever used them. Some of the things about 6th, I thought were nice additions. Things like snap shots, new wound allocation or vehicle hull points were some changes I really welcomed.

Since I have no inclination to play modern AO40KS, I had a blank check to go back to whatever edition of both systems my heart desired, I went back to 3rd Ed. 40k and 6th Ed. WFB, and have a player pool to choose from, so that should tell you...

I really like 8th, and I've generally liked the new edition bettee than the last since 2nd, so I'm excited to see what improvements 9th brings even though it seems like all it would need to do is consolidate 8th's development.

7th by far, for me and my group was the best the game had ever been, yes it needed a few things sorting but not much and a chapter approved book could have sorted any points issues easy, although not really cos they only base points changed off of tournaments. It was the tournaments and the waac community that killed 7th, and 8th is everything that they said they didn’t want before it was released and the amount of constant changes makes it impossible to keep up for most people and/or support other games.

2nd is still my favourite.

8th (the core rules only) is a close second. However, 8th has been losing its appeal to me based on the power creep and the rather absurd combos which are just game breaking.

 Stormonu wrote:
8th has its warts, but I have to say I've enjoyed it most.

Overall, the one thing I've learned from my years of gaming is that there is neither a perfect ruleset nor do I need to blindly follow what someone else has put together. If I don't like it - I can change it so I do.

That, and the game plays so much better at about 1,000 - 1,250 points (with no Lords O' War).

Do you play on a 4x4? Because for me 1200 points barely feels like I have anything on the table on a 6x4.

8th but I do miss vehicle facings and Blast pie plates.

Silver144 wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I played only one game of 5th, but then played 6th, 7th and 8th. Of the three 8th has the most tactical depth by far, it got rid of unnecessary bloat, tanks feel like tanks and the stratagem system is a very nice addon that actually gives you decisions. The psychic phase is also a vast improvement and I like the many possible addons for narrative play. Constant FAQs are also very appreciated, CSM waited nearly two whole editions in the dust, now OP units get adjusted pretty fast. Terrain is pretty useless in normal 8th though, but Cities of Death fixed that already.

May I ask how did the CoD fixed terrain?
Infantry still could warp through the solid walls without doors or windows, should just a tiny bit of your soldier's hat be visible behind the terrain, and suddenly the whole squad could be targeted and killed. Oh, and should just one guy stay in the open, the other 19 lose their cover bonus. Is it fixed?

Yep.

Well no, but the actual problems with CoD aren't what you complained about here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
8th, because you can't beat consistent FAQs and actual point changes.

So you call an unstable rules system an improvement??

Over flat broken rules systems that slowly got even more degraded over time?

Yeah.

2nd Was the best. 3-4th down hill. 8th is about where 3rd was.

6th edition, pre-Knights. I enjoyed 5th, but the lack of standard mission variety got old, and I wasn't big on Mech-Vets.

4th and 3rd were ok, but the glaring assault-to-assault-to-assault-to-assault where I couldn't shoot anything was tiresome in third, and the overly easily destroyed vehicles of 4th were also problematic.

While I played 2nd, it was my least favourite experience of any edition except 7th, which I grew to *hate*. I enjoyed the streamlining of the rules from 2nd to 3rd... 2nd was just a mess to me. Fun, but a mess. 7th was the absolute MOST unbalanced edition I've played. I despised it.

I'm enjoying 8th the most.

5th just needed an extra sentence or two to fix wound allocation (allocate all AP1 wounds first, then all AP2, then AP3 etc.), and the core rules were probably be the best they've ever been.

The issue I had with 5th was how grenades worked. They fixed it in 6th and added a lot other nicities that I felt really improved the gameplay and storybuilding so I tend to like 6th better overall. I do feel though that in terms of base ruleset 5th was the best overall. It wasnt too complicated but it wasnt too simple either so it ended up having a nice balance to it.

Barring pure nostalgia for 2nd and early 3rd I would say 8th is the one I've enjoyed the most.

Its very hard for me to pinpoint, I really liked 3rd as it was all so new to me, 4th gave me so much to customise and play with, 5th was the first real serious tourney edition i got into, 6th was terrible but gave me Horus Heresy, 7th 40k was bad, very bad so i abandoned it for 7th Horus Heresy, 8th ... I am very mixed on, I love some of it, hate other parts.

So I am going to go with 7th horus heresy.

This current version is by far and away my favorite so far. I have played since 4th though.

ERJAK wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
8th has its warts, but I have to say I've enjoyed it most.

Overall, the one thing I've learned from my years of gaming is that there is neither a perfect ruleset nor do I need to blindly follow what someone else has put together. If I don't like it - I can change it so I do.

That, and the game plays so much better at about 1,000 - 1,250 points (with no Lords O' War).

Do you play on a 4x4? Because for me 1200 points barely feels like I have anything on the table on a 6x4.

I've played on 6x4, 5x4, 4x4 and 3x3. Most games have been on 5x4, with lots of terrain to prevent cross-board shooting (I do tend to play Tau, and recognize my regular opponent likes to use a lot of melee-orientated troops).

I'd say 5th, but that's almost certainly just nostalgia. All things considered, 8th is probably a lot better, because as much as I miss the days of my Vanquishers vs. my friend's Hammerheads, that bridge has been burned by Riptides and the anime-robots, and out own getting better at the game, and isn't going to be rebuilt even if a different ruleset is adopted.

3rd. But also Rogue Trader for how free form and creative it can be.

ERJAK wrote:

Silver144 wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I played only one game of 5th, but then played 6th, 7th and 8th. Of the three 8th has the most tactical depth by far, it got rid of unnecessary bloat, tanks feel like tanks and the stratagem system is a very nice addon that actually gives you decisions. The psychic phase is also a vast improvement and I like the many possible addons for narrative play. Constant FAQs are also very appreciated, CSM waited nearly two whole editions in the dust, now OP units get adjusted pretty fast. Terrain is pretty useless in normal 8th though, but Cities of Death fixed that already.

May I ask how did the CoD fixed terrain?
Infantry still could warp through the solid walls without doors or windows, should just a tiny bit of your soldier's hat be visible behind the terrain, and suddenly the whole squad could be targeted and killed. Oh, and should just one guy stay in the open, the other 19 lose their cover bonus. Is it fixed?

Yep.

Well no, but the actual problems with CoD aren't what you complained about here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
8th, because you can't beat consistent FAQs and actual point changes.

So you call an unstable rules system an improvement??

Over flat broken rules systems that slowly got even more degraded over time?

Yeah.

So CoD fix nothing and terrain rules are still an inconsistent mess?

2nd edition was a lot of fun when it ran more like a skirmish game, it would be unusable in our larger games these days.

5th I would have to agree with others took what 3rd edition started and came up with a mature system that fixed many of the issues. It was still not perfect by any stretch but made the most of an I-go-you-go system.

6th had many good ideas that could have built-on 5th but too many things were changed that caused huge issues. That was the system I stopped buying all the codex books (too many for this edition) and I stopped getting White Dwarf. Unfortunately, that was the dark age when GW was almost exclusively about the money and little else and even created a few "pay to win" moments.

Yeah, I stopped at 6th too. I loved it. Favorite ruleset so far, but the group I was gaming with just kind of disolved around that point or switched to warmachine due to the whole dark age thing.

Only played starting in 6th but 7th had the better core rules. Problem with 7th overall was the run away power creep and GW not giving a flying zog about game balance. Looking back I would probably of liked 5th more but i didn't play in that era. 8th is absolutely terrible imo because it's so watered down and lacks tactical depth.

7th was a hellscape of horrible balance and required the players to self regulate to bring relatively equal strength armies. If you did then the gameplay was fantastic and fun. 8th by comparison might be a lot more balanced but it's boring a hell and turns into basically who goes first and mathematically has the most dakka.

7th minus all the apoc crap.

7th with 5th or 6th codecies?

I admit, I'm a bit shocked by people saying they thought 7th was "fantastic and fun" or had tons of "strategic depth". I don't know I'd claim that for almost any game of 40K. The rules have always been pretty sub-par as a wargame --- its popularity really do to the models. I enjoy playing 8th and 2nd, but even I wouldn't heap that heavy praise on the game design.

3rd through 7th was a dark period in game design in my opinion.

 Elbows wrote:
I admit, I'm a bit shocked by people saying they thought 7th was "fantastic and fun" or had tons of "strategic depth". I don't know I'd claim that for almost any game of 40K. The rules have always been pretty sub-par as a wargame --- its popularity really do to the models. I enjoy playing 8th and 2nd, but even I wouldn't heap that heavy praise on the game design.

3rd through 7th was a dark period in game design in my opinion.

Being bad doesn't stop it being fun. For example Shadow the Hedgehog is a bad game but I still love it.

As far as core rules design only, I think 7th had the best core rules and potential to make a good game. Obviously, it didn't pan out, and I think 5th edition was the best experience I had playing 40k. 3rd was fun but felt very dated (I played it around the time 6th edition came out since I kinda hated 6th) and 2nd edition was a mess as far as the rulebook was concerned. 8th has a lot of problems, and I think Games Workshop is trying to find the middle ground of simple rules vs complexity and depth. I don't think they've found it yet, and I would be lying if I said I've gotten a lot of enjoyment out of 8th edition.

So yeah, 5th edition for personal experience and expansions, 7th for core rule design and potential.

I was watching saving private ryan last night. There was a part where the soldiers holding the bridge list off all the remaining weapons and ammo they have, underlining the point that it all "may as well be spitwads if they send tanks at us". That was 5-7th, it made sense, vehicles arcs were a big thing, vehicles were very different than infantry and it was possible to have situation where you just couldn't hurt armour, as it should be. Someone at gw watched that movie and thought "this scene would be better if any weapon could hurt tanks because reasons" and 8th ed was born. Low cover and basic logic be damned, now if you'll excuse my my flyer has to assault that bunker because reasons. 8th is just bad, player's love of shiny new models will always obscure that, but it's a worse game than prior editions.

2nd Ed for me.

It was bonkers, yet playable for the most part. And it’s what I properly cut my teeth on as a Hobbyist. It was also when we saw the background properly codified from the ‘kitchen sink’ approach of Rogue Trader to the setting we know now.

Just a helluva lot of fun. 10lbs of Fun in a 5lb bag.

Another fan of 8th. I played 1st - 3rd and then drifted away to historical wargaming, it was the streamlined rules, the free intro rules card and the cheap index series that enticed me back into 40k.

8th because when a unit/codex isn't up to scratch you don't have to wait years for a new codex, it can be fixed in the next CA. Also, the most OP stuff doesn't have to stay that way. Even if those units aren't nerfed, knowing that they could be makes it less rage inducing. That's awesome.

2nd using only the army lists booklet in the box for smaller platoon-level skirmishes, or 8th using the Index books for larger company-level engagements. Epic Armageddon for regiment-level battles.

5th with a community comp/errata/scenarios

followed by 8th with index only at 1250 points

Early 8th was the best IMO. 2017 to early 2018. Or 8th Index only.

Codex power creep and esp. the Knight Codex kinda killed the at least basic balance they had going, unfotunately.

Without a shadow of a doubt, 1st edition, its where the insanity started, it had the dark humour and the depth of potential to be anything you wanted it to be.

plus with 10-20 models per side, or maybe 20-30 for a 'horde' and reasonable levels of home made terrain you could have a seriously entertaining game - with whatever level of seriousness or silliness you desired, heck 5-10 models a side fighting in a dense urban area or building worked pretty well too.

everything past that has been trying to take the basic concept and throw way more models at it.

We are now at the point 40k is less complex than 1st edition Space Marine was, and has yet to reach the same visual spectacle SM could offer.

seems to be a common problem with most games where the company writing the rules also wants to sell you models to be honest, for 40k not sure there is a solution.

At least 8th has the ability to scale downwards and work with a handful of models again pretty easily.

Enjoyed 1st, only played 2nd much later, missed 3rd, watched 4th, 5th I played, was ok, 6th was worse, 7th was terrible, 8th was what the game needed, hopefully 9th adds some of the detail and flavour back as its all getting a bit bland in terms of rules with spectacular models.

And no matter what, my Orks are most emphatically not fungus

5th was my favorite followed closely by 3.5 (using the chapter approved articles/books). 5th only needed to be tweaked by removing the wound allocation rule and putting cover saves in ruins back to a 5+.

Sadly, EVERY edition since 5th has gone further and further downhill. 6th was ok until the Escalation book was released and introduced super-heavy tanks into regular 40k games. Combine that with Knights, allies, and a wonky psychic phase, and BLAMO. The sad thing is now that GW cashed in and sold all those toys, they can’t hit a reset button and tell people not to use them. 8th edition tried to hit that button, but it now suffers from many of the same problems that 7th and 6th had. Rick Priestly gave an interview a couple years ago and was asked about what he saw with the current and future editions of 40k. He said that back in the day, they were very careful to keep the sales team separated from the game designers. They knew that if the sales guys had their way and were allowed to push the big, expensive toys in the regular game to boost sales, that it would generate a boost of revenue in the short-term, but have lasting effects to the longevity of the game.

IMO, that’s one of the reasons why so many of us enjoyed 5th edition. It was the last edition that had the 40k look and feel without being a smaller version of Apocalypse.

2nd. Probably the one I played most, and, while it wasn't perfect, with few models and lots of choices it was the most enjoyable.

8th does seem pretty good though.

Not sure if I have a favorite at this point.

8th is ok, it works and does kinda everything in a "eh good enough" manner, definitely superior to the 6E/7E disaster paradigm that ended up being the worst period of the game's history. Hardly perfect however and could definitely use significant adjustment.

5th was probably the best pre-8th edition, but was still deeply flawed with tons of major inherent problems. As much as I want to like 4th, it had even more problems (who doesn't like transports that only work if they're skimmers?).

I'd say 5th was my favorite that didn't require modifications or group agreement to curb the harshest things that could be done in game. The main change I would make to 5th would be making vehicles a little less durable. I remember a rhino managing to eat half an armies shooting and having that pretty much do nothing.

To be fair to 5th, vehicles in general werent particularly bad, rather 35-50pt rhinos that only cared about moving and could effectively shrug off 5/6 glancing and 3/6 penetrating results were an issue. Anything that wanted to shoot was relatively trivially silenced, and most other transports that just wanted to move were significantly more expensive.

I love the AP system & weapons doing multiple Damage of 8E. Makes far more sense than the prior editions.
Some weapons might be a bit too common, but the SYSTEM is great.

8E has been my favorite so far and I've played since 4E. It's getting a bit too much with rules upon rules (like 7E, probably my least favorite edition), but so many of the concepts for 8E are great

-