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

Which 40k was the best overall.
I know 2nd was the most complicated and 3rd was the simplest.
But which was really the best overall in your opinion?

5th Edition preview.

Hmmm.
I have to say, when I got over the shock, the third edition seemed like good fun at first. Unfortunately, as it went on, it got a bit bogged down in itself. It also expanded the 40K universe a lot, with Tau, Dark Eldar Necrons and the Inquisition getting their codices. Unfortunately, said codices were craptacular for fluff and generally over priced. This got better towards the end, with the Chaos and improved Gaurd codices.
I liked how transports worked back then, and some other stuff, like the suggested terrain tables and fun missions.
4th wasn't really enough of an improvement in the areas that improved to cancel out the problems in the areas where problems were created. I'd rate it as the same quality for different reasons.
I had fun playing second edition and remember it fondly, but as a rules system for squad based combat it was lacking. Much better for small skirmishes.
I'd like to see 40K swing further toward a squad based design rather than individual models within squads. I think this would make it easier to balance, on the whole.
(Yes, I realise this would cut down on army variation, but lets be honest: 40K already offers a huge amount of different armies to choose from. It's possibly beyond the limited resources of the design team to balance all of them perfectly without some loss in variation within armies.)

3ed with overwatch gone my endless tide of nids finally got to the enemy. And I am somtimes very good at 5+ invul saves.

I can't speak to Rogue Trader, as I started midway through 2nd edition (circa 1995). However, RT is spoken of in hushed tones of love and appreciation by people who miss the crazy random fun of it as a skirmish game.

2nd edition had fiddly, barely legible rules (this coming from someone who played Battletech every weekend at the time). It had broken mechanics (overwatch), overpowered character (Baharroth killing 2/3ds of my opponent's ork army single-handedly), it took forever to play a game over 1000 points ('wait, what turn is it?') and codex creep that would make future editions bite their pillows (you'd have thought the Chaos Codex was made of win). Having said that, it was my first foray into 40k, and it was a damn good time.

3rd edition was streamlined, focused play, with all the rules in one book. Sure, there was codex creep, a lack of fluff in the original books, and in the far distant future, it seemed that all wars were won by charging the other guy with a table leg, and eventually the trial assault and vehicle rules made the game some kind of monster, but it was fun. I still regret getting rid of my BBB from 3rd ed, as there are days I'd like to just play it, no codicies.

Oh, and 3rd ed. killed off the squats. Boo.

4th edition: the core rulebook is magnificent. Psychology that matters! HQs that matter! Kill team! Combat Patrol! Had they used it as an opportunity to reboot all the armies, not done in vehicles, and had they not immediately found ways around the psychology and leadership rules in the following codicies (ATSKNF+Leadership 10 = lame), it could have been the perfect version.

In terms of balance, 3rd was probably the best. In terms of zaniness akin to an RPG, RT wins. In terms of diversity, 2nd ed. wins out. None of the editions quite makes it to 'perfect', though.

I was talking to a gamer that I hadn't seen in a few years, we used to play together primarily in 3rd and we both lamented those days. Was it a perfect system? Heck no, but it was fun and simple.

6th edition. Brought to you by the fine folks at Hasbro.




I keed. I keed.

I agree with syr8766. I also started playing during second edition, and I still have a soft spot for that ruleset (although I've since forgotten a lot of the details), but ultimately it was imbalanced and overly complicated. 4 ed. seems like a refinement of 3 ed.

Never got to try RT. :(
2nd edition.... pluses: different movement rates for different races
options for 'exotic' units: exodites, arbites, cultists, hybrids
grenades that could actually be thrown LOL

3rd edition.... shooting and then actually assaulting the enemy, instead of being left to weather HIS charge on his turn.

4th edition.......ummmmmmmm, I'm thinking, I'm thinking..........

2nd edition was the most complicated?

Ummm, no chance in hell. Rogue Trader was a 1,000 times more complicated than 2nd edition.


The best balanced game of 40K was 3rd edition right out of the rulebook. Very fun, simple and balanced.


As 40K has progressed it has very clearly jettisoned the fiddly little rules that apply to a game on the model level and moved towards a game on the squad level.

The more fiddly little rules there were on a model by model basis, the far more open to abuse the system was to those players who wanted to abuse it.

In Rogue Trader you could buy missiles that would wipe out half of the table or take level 4 Psykers that could decimate whole squads on their own. Etc, etc, etc.

You had (pretty much) ultimate freedom to create your armies but the price of that freedom was abuse.


2nd edition got rid of a lot of that freedom but it still had quite a bit laying around so you still had some absolutely ridiculous things like players throwing a table full of blind grenades, each one you had to roll for every turn to see if they scattered, shrunk or disappeared.

You had entire armies made up of Space Wolf Terminators with Assault Cannons AND Cyclone Missile Launchers (on the same model, no joke) or Ork armies made up almost entirely of Nobs in Mega Armor carrying Lascannons.

You had "strategy" cards that would wipe out certain armies without the game ever really starting (Virus Outbreak).

The "game" itself was definitely a step forward but it still took many hours and you still had to sit there fiddling with the fire arcs of individual models. Overwatch ground the game to halt and ultimately it was decided by tooled up Characters.


3rd edition was a big step forward towards streamlining the game into a squad-based one. Individual fire arcs were gone, the LOS rules were heavily streamlined (allowing you to fire through friendly models), movement was increased, overwatch was removed, transport vehicles were no longer flaming deathtraps, etc. Most importantly, all the armies in the game were re-balanced via lists in the rulebook.

However, as the codices were released it became apparent that there were some serious flaws in the system. The transition from model based rules to squad based rules hadn't gone seamlessly and there were still a bunch of rules that didn't really work right. Transports were too durable, there were mutiple versions of the same rules found all over different codices that all worked slightly differently and the rules just didn't make sense in many situations (mixed toughness vs. majority armor, etc).


4th edition should have been the final move from model based gaming to squad based gaming, but sadly it didn't go all the way. Range and LOS being determined on a model by model basis meant that positioning of models within a unit was still something the player has to worry about. In close combat, the fact that which models are pulled as casualties has a huge impact on who can fight and whether the unit can be rundown meant (again) that positioning of individual models was incredibly important.

Some of the other concepts introduced to try to make the game fully squad based were ultimately not very intuitive. Majority armor, torrent of fire, etc.

Basically, 4th edition was supposed to be a big step forward (and it was in many regards) but it still ultimately failed as the final translation to squad based gaming.

That said, despite what many people claim, I still contend that the current edition of the game produces the fewest amount of rules issues that the game has ever had.

The balance may not be as tight as back when 3rd edition armies were all in one rulebook but overall the game itself is still much quicker and easier to play than it ever has before.


So, IMHO 4th edition is the best version of the game so far, in that it is the easiest and funnest to play with fewer rules arguments than ever before.

yakface wrote:2nd edition was the most complicated?

Ummm, no chance in hell. Rogue Trader was a 1,000 times more complicated than 2nd edition.

Random ability and equipment rolls FTW!

The best balanced game of 40K was 3rd edition right out of the rulebook.

Totally agreed.

2nd edition got rid of a lot of that freedom but it still had quite a bit laying around so you still had some absolutely ridiculous things like players throwing a table full of blind grenades, each one you had to roll for every turn to see if they scattered, shrunk or disappeared.

And setting people ON FIRE! Oh, that was hilarious!

I think if I were to play 2E again, I'd play for ultimate template spam, so every turn we could spend half an hour moving stupid little templates around the board for almost no net game effect except to consume time.

So, IMHO 4th edition is the best version of the game so far, in that it is the easiest and funnest to play with fewer rules arguments than ever before.

I'm a bit torn whether I prefer 3rd or 4th. They were both decent, but both also had there problems.

Unfortunately, GW has decided to open another can of worms for 5th instead of making the minor changes necessary to have a decent ruleset.

I definitely prefer 4th edition, especially right around the time that it came out and preceding that during the Eye of Terror Campaign. 4th ed cleaned up the 3rd ed rules, but the gaming community evolved much more quickly and 4th has become obsolete at a faster pace than previous editions. The sheer volume of players trading advice online and pushing the game to its limits has revealed the flawed areas of the rules. That being said, I liked the improved missions, mobile vehicles, and the accelerated game play. I enjoyed 2nd a lot, but it was hard to manage. 3rd was smoother, but there were so many beardy ploys, and some mechanics like rapid fire and assault were rusty. 4th isn't perfect by a long shot, but I have had more fun playing it than any of the other editions. Lets hope 5th is an improvement.

I'd vote for 4th. It cleared up a lot of the biggest problems with 3rd.

I never played RT and only a minimal amount of 2nd, so I can't comment on them too much.

I've played in all 4 editions and remember fondly the hours and hours at night after high school trying to work out the cost of a vincent blackshadow bike for my marine commander in RT.

But truely the best time was the start of 3rd ed, probably for the first 2-3 years.
I was living in Rockhampton, pop 60,000 in regional Queensland, there were 20-30 regular gamers in the group I played at and only myself and one friend made the jump initially to 3rd ed. We played 36 hours with only a few breaks the first weekend with others dropping by to watch. Easy rules, balance, a sense that on the whole it all worked. Within 2 weeks everyone in the group had shifted and were having a blast and there was a real dynamism in 40k. Of course after 3 odd years it all became horrendously complicated with extra rules and codex creep but for that first glorious weekend and the next couple of years that followed that was the 'golden age' for me.
Also a heap of new players came in with the new rules. Which was great too..

yakface wrote:The balance may not be as tight as back when 3rd edition armies were all in one rulebook but overall the game itself is still much quicker and easier to play than it ever has before.
So, IMHO 4th edition is the best version of the game so far, in that it is the easiest and funnest to play with fewer rules arguments than ever before.

I think that the balance will never be tight unless they reboot the whole system - rules and codecies at the same time. I do not understand why GW is so resistant to putting out a "ravening hordes" style list to "get people by" until the new edition ramps up. It would keep people buying models in the mean time.

I gotta say 4th but closely followed by 3rd.

Ravening Hordes means that GW stops selling Codices cold. They get a *FREE* ruleset instead of shelling out $25 a pop. It's a sales killer.

Plus, it takes real work to go through every model in the game and review the rules for it.

A ravening hordes list doesn't just slow the sales of codices, it also is a real bummer to the people at the end of the development cycle. While GW at least tried with the most egregious examples (Brets, lizards, beasts and the poor forsaken woodies in WFB, and sisters in 40k) to supply the forgotten armies with slightly updated lists, they were still a far cry from a complete codex.

On the other hand, those Ravening Hordes lists, and even more so the Chapter Approved lists, make up for their thin options with a tighter focus on how each unit fights into the whole. As yak has been talking about, the focus moves from "what cool rule should Seraphim have" to a more focused: "what rule do Seraphim play in the army?" type design.

I'm a big fan of 'ravening hordes' style reboots of a game system because I think they are really good in allowing designers to prune away bad rules they gotten into the habit of using in codices and now can't escape from.


However, I do know that there are a *whole lot* of people who don't care for the re-boot approach and would much rather stick with existing codices through a new edition of the game even if it means there are some rules issues to wade through. As is always said: You can't please all the people all the time.

From a business and introduction to the hobby standpoint I think its a no-brainer decision on GW's part (which is why they have stopped doing the 'ravening hordes' full re-boot method). A codex is a tool for helping people collect an army. Even if the rules are bit off in a couple of places, all the fluff, pictures, modeling advice, etc. is still valid. So when a new player walks into a store and is interested in collecting an army having a codex to show him what the army looks like is a powerful tool.

When a system is reboot it will take about 5 years for every codex to get re-done and in the meantime that army is sitting without a sales tool in the stores.

yakface wrote:
I'm a big fan of 'ravening hordes' style reboots of a game system because I think they are really good in allowing designers to prune away bad rules they gotten into the habit of using in codices and now can't escape from.

However, I do know that there are a *whole lot* of people who don't care for the re-boot approach and would much rather stick with existing codices through a new edition of the game even if it means there are some rules issues to wade through. As is always said: You can't please all the people all the time.

I too am a huge fan of the full reboot of the system. I think my favorite time in 40k was the beginning of 3rd where not only was everyone learning the rules again, but everyone had a leveled out army list to work with out of the main book. Things went down hill fast once they started releasing other codexes (both eldar books, Armageddon, and blood angles being the biggest offenders). However if you want to look at things from purely a base rules standpoint (or the standpoint of once the codexes are done) then 4th would be my favorite.

I just wish they would rewrite all the army lists into one book and reset things again so we can have a balanced start once more.

In an ideal world, GW would do Ravening Hordes resets with each new rulebook, followed by Codices / Army Books pushed out over 2-3 years, leaving players 3-4 years of playtime.

But that isn't what we see. Instead, GW is advancing the rules and Codices on a catch-as-catch-can basis, resulting in some unevenness among armies as the tides shift and Codices are released.

Given that this has been the pattern for roughly a decade, one would expect people to learn to deal with it a little better...

I think they should make 5th edition a "Challenge Everything" reboot where only the fluff escapes unscathed. But that's just me, and GW probably doesn't consider it practical.

I seem to recall second edition came with the Black Codex, or something to that effect, that had most armies in it . It has been years since I looked at the second edition box contents so I may just be imagining things.

This is my first post here an DakkaDakka!

I really enjoyed when 3rd first came out and the roolz book contained every codex. I wish the next edition did the same thing, it kept things both unified and simplified within the game. After playing weekend long games of 2nd edition, I loved being able to play multiple games within an evening.

@ Ahtman: You're not imagining things- 2nd ed. did come with it's own "Ravening Hordes" style book. A little pamphlet, and if I'm not mistaken, it was the last place we saw rules for selecting a Squat army that wasn't "counts as".

The thing I noticed most was how much we played at each new edition. Some of it has to do with having more models as the new rulesets came along, but some was just pure user-friendliness.

My friends and I pored over the RT and associated books ('Ere We Go, Freebooterz for me) but I can count the number of times we were actually able to play a full up game on one hand.

2nd Edition triggered a new wave of game playing, but it still took blocking off most of a day to be able to play.

3rd edition was my golden age for playing- but as it entered it's later stages I switched more over to WHFB and then moved away from any real gaming community which means my experience with 4th is almost non-existent.

RZ

Having only played WHFB's current edition...

Rogue Trader, at least it's the version that requires least fixing. Simplify a few of those tables and you're almost done.

I loved 2nd Edition, but the cheese factor that could be obtained was legendary. Also melee combat was borked.
I once witnessed a terminator squadron decimate a horde of Genestealers down to sinlge model, only to be gutted entirely by the single genestealer once it made it into melee.

3rd Edition forced better game balance on us by smashing anything that was good in 2nd edition (psionics, named charecters) with a sledgehammer.
Huge points though for fixing melee combat.

4th Edition reintroducing Psychic powers and personality models you can play without permission was a huge step forward from 3rd edition, and Tyranids with biodiversity is great, but the last few vanilla codices hurt.

5th Edition - seems to be trying to use the best of each previous edition approach.

I'm hoping 5th Edition will be the best edition ever.

Rogue trader had the coolest models by far, their were so many different ones (Who doesn't love Zoats?). The rules however were definitely troublesome as stated. Nothing worse than a marine assault squad with toxin grenades, or a virus missile (for us squat players). I think originally rogue trader was meant to be kind of a role playing/wargaming mix with some sort of GM to help balance the opposing armies.

I think that 3rd edition straight out of the rulebook is by far the most fun to play... but I would rather play 40k at a skirmish level like rogue trader out of the book.