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.

Comp scoring varies from event to event, and its use has always been a little controversial.

Some players swear by it, some thing it is the bane of all existence, and whatever comp system an event chooses to use, some will complain about its inherent unfairness. As a result, some areas still use it extensively, but it seems to be on the decline. From what I've seen, US events generally run without it. Here in Oz it's a bit of a mixed bag - some do, some don't.

It's rare for stuff to be flat out outlawed in 40K tournies. Comp instead generally gives players points towards their overall total... more points for a less hardcore list, fewer points for more unbalances lists. Some have tried to award points based on the 'fluffiness' of the list, some just look at whether or not lists take certain units or gear, or how 'optimised' the lists are.

It's all quite subjective, which is where the complaints come from. The more successful comp systems here in Oz tend to use a panel of experienced players to evaluate each list.

I started playing in 3rd edition through 4th edition and only recently started playing again. I liked 3rd edition most probably because everything was much cheaper...$20 squads and the Land Raider was only $45! I could also use the Leman Russ for my Space Wolves, so that was a rude awakening when I read the new SW codex. On the other hand, my dreads, heroes and termis are all metal and usually need to have battle repairs...the 6th edition rules do clear up a lot of the small issues I had with the older rules, like moving, shooting with the same BS as stationary, and assaulting in the same turn. I voted 3rd edition only for economic and nostalgic purposes...

In 5th edition 40k, tau fear blood angels!
..Sorry for that terrible joke, anyway, in MY opinion 6th edition feels better, the over watch, allies, fliers, and my favorite part, throwing grenades! I started collecting in late 4th edition and started playing in 5th.

I'm still on the fence a little. I've been playing since 2nd edition, and right now I think 5th is my favourite.

I love a lot of the ideas in 6th, but the game just feels like a bit of a mess at the moment. Too much random stuff going on that individually is cool, but all together just makes for an awful lot of stuff to keep track of.

And for all the cool random stuff, there is the stuff like random psychic powers that I disliked back in 2nd edition and don't like any better 15 years later.

Second edition is the best.

I think hidden scenario objectives for each side would be cool, specially if it was on a card we had to place in an envelope or something, so the opponent knew we weren't lying.

 evildrspock wrote:
I think hidden scenario objectives for each side would be cool, specially if it was on a card we had to place in an envelope or something, so the opponent knew we weren't lying.

Yeah, 2nd edition came with 2 cards for each mission. At the start of the game, you shuffled them and each took one, which you left face down somewhere until the end of the game.


I have some similar cards on my website (along with an updated version of the 2nd edition 'Strategy Cards') that I made up last edition, but with the changes to 6th ed they probably want some updating now...

 akaean wrote:
At a casual level I have had more fun playing 6th edition than I ever have playing 5th. Win or Lose, heavy casualties all around, and pretty exciting games.

My big problem with 6th is that when you start taking it competitive it just SUCKS. Dealing with 3 heldrakes is a pain in the ass as by the time you kill them all all your troops are dead. Vendettas are horrendously undercosted, and Scythe Spam just breaks the game straight up. The game has really turned into flier spam, which gets shot down by Tau. Certain lists and builds are painfully unfun to play against, and really the competitive scene for 40K in my area has lost a lot of players because of it.

Casually however in games with friends with few-no fliers, everything has been a lot of fun.

This. This x1000.

I love playing 40k at a casual level, I always use models which I want instead of using "List X or Y", I find this more enjoyable and even more tactical than "Spam/buythelatestshineyhammer" (which is what the competitive scene is really) I love the rules because of the variety of them in what role they do. My problem with the rules is that there are still loopholes big enough to exploit to make lists out of them or to bend to a certain rule to the point that it becomes your main advantage in your army, which really sucks the fun out of the game for me, as it means to even compete against the majority of my gaming area who plays or played 40k, I have to buy more or even have to buy "list X" just to even play a game with a chance of drawing, which really does not appeal to me because of the prices of GW. I have started other games because of this as I have no interest in becoming part of the Meta, simply because I don't want to play competitive lists as I feel that competitive lists are the "easy mode" switched on for 40k and then you start to think of the game more as math and numbers, than playing in the 41st millennium and that bores me tbh.

However I do enjoy 6th the most still because I love Herohammer, and I like using regular guys and m thanaking characters using the regular HQ options than SC, I like to think that I have made a mark in the 41st millennium than following the adventures of Marius Calgar, Abbadon the Despoiler, etc, etc.

I remember 3rd Edition had the Vehicle Design Rules excerpt so that you could create your own vehicles. Awesome concept and had a lot of fun with that. My brother and I enjoyed it until I had a 40k modified B-25 bomber that wiped out half his army the first turn with bombs and heavy bolters. Airpower!

The secret mission cards and random event cards really added a whole new level to the game.

I just found a 5th edition rulebook two days ago and I got to say, I like the vehicle damage chart better in there then the current one.

My favourite would be 2nd.
The runner up is 6th.

Though they are both Warhammer 40k, they are very different games.

2nd had armour modifiers, used pieces of cotton wool to represent grenades impacts, (force) march and the various movement distances (4" norm, squats getting 3"). They were long in depth games. Fun, but not a 30 minute pick up game.


3rd felt odd at the time. Looking back and comparing it to 5/6th ed. (which I know better) and 2nd ed. (which holds a fond place in my heart) I see why: 3rd dumped the variety/interesting aspects of 2nd ed. but lacked the polish of 5th ed.

However, as some have said, the mini-dexs brought variety to what was then just vanilla, and the world wide campaigns made the 3rd ed. era a very fun time.

4th was a polished version of 3rd ed.


5th (re)introduced run and made some interesting rules. I had fun with my 4th ed. Nid codex in 5th ed. rules (fearless wounds aside).
6th feels like a refinement of 5th ed. (and the game from 3rd ed. in general) - making the game flow faster and easier. 'Easy' makes it very accessible for people to enter, but easy gets boring.


I like 6th ed., especially the randomness. It isn't all good (the random deployment zones is meaningless when all the outcomes feel the same) but some of it is great (Missions! Psychic powers). I look forward to the next edition, hoping that there is a step towards more variety with depth (like vehicle damage tables) to match our many varieties of vanilla.

RT and 2nd were the best. I grew up with 2nd but touched on RT. The game was smaller and complex, but fun and manageable. Yes there was overpowered and broken stuff like virus grenades and most of Codex: Space Wolves. But it had character and was a joy to play.

3rd probably the worst as it binned everything that was interesting, almost all psychic powers, lots of other rules which meant the game was dumbed down with horribly simplistic vehicle rules and much lower points costs that turned it into a game using masses of figures and mass removal. It ruined the game for me.

I started playing with 5th but really enjoy 6th.

I've been a fan of 40K background since first buying Space Hulk back in '89 but never thought I'd enjoy the hobby side of miniatures. I was so wrong and really wish I'd started playing 40K a lot sooner.

I preferred the wound allocation of 5th edition. That rule only needed some minor changes in its wording to stop the whole doubling up of wounds on certain groups to reduce casualties. Now we have the wacky rule where the guys closest to the enemy always dies first, no matter what.

GorillaWarfare wrote:
Now we have the wacky rule where the guys closest to the enemy always dies first, no matter what.

IMHO it would make more sense for the people closest to be killed first because they will be more likely to get hit then someone in the rear in a fluff point of view.

 gnoise wrote:

GorillaWarfare wrote:
Now we have the wacky rule where the guys closest to the enemy always dies first, no matter what.

IMHO it would make more sense for the people closest to be killed first because they will be more likely to get hit then someone in the rear in a fluff point of view.

Pretty much, it's weirder when people in the back, hidden behind a mountain and still die to a bolter or grot shot without implying the shooter has managed to ricochet his shot off several things to hit him.

 dementedwombat wrote:
I have the 3rd, 4th, and 5th edition rulebooks sitting on my shelf (never bought 6th actually, the people I usually play with have enough copies to go around). Never actually played a 3rd edition game.

I have heard wondrous things about the vehicle damage charts in 1st/2nd edition. I really wish I could try them out, just once.

If a vehicle got destroyed in those editions(1st and 2nd)everyone in them was automatically dead. Land Raiders were death traps.

Relapse wrote:

 dementedwombat wrote:
I have the 3rd, 4th, and 5th edition rulebooks sitting on my shelf (never bought 6th actually, the people I usually play with have enough copies to go around). Never actually played a 3rd edition game.

I have heard wondrous things about the vehicle damage charts in 1st/2nd edition. I really wish I could try them out, just once.

If a vehicle got destroyed in those editions(1st and 2nd)everyone in them was automatically dead. Land Raiders were death traps.

There were far more damage options though, that did not lead to everyone dying. For example, for a Chimera, you would kill everyone on a roll of 6 if you penetrate the track, 5 or 6 for the turret and 4+ for the hull. The other damage options were so varied and characterful, it was just plain good fun. Even for the player on the receiving end

My personal favourite was rolling a 5 on a Leman Russ turret, destroying the tank, killing the crew and blowing the turret 2D6 in a random direction. It landed on a squad of Ratling Snipers, causing D6 Str 9 hits with a -6 modifier to armour. Flatling Snipers!

 insaniak wrote:
I'm still on the fence a little. I've been playing since 2nd edition, and right now I think 5th is my favourite.

I love a lot of the ideas in 6th, but the game just feels like a bit of a mess at the moment. Too much random stuff going on that individually is cool, but all together just makes for an awful lot of stuff to keep track of.

This is my feeling. There are a lot of concepts I like in 6th, but a lot of poor execution and randomness. 5th had a lot of flaws (a lot), but felt like a more solid ruleset, and I miss using tanks

I started playing 4e and have enjoyed all three additions to some extent. 4e had some of the most solid rules, but also lacked variety, while 5e and 6e suffered from a range of rules related problems.

Fourth Edition: I loved the wound allocation system in this edition, simple, robust and unexploitable. Also, I feel abstracted line of sight is far superior to TLOS, making it far easier to determine LOS and cover and also making it easier to deny line of sight, which greatly enhanced tactical play. If it were up to me to change 6e in a manner that made assault more viable, I would say bring back abstracted line of sight to assault units could close in by maneuvering carefully, as opposed just popping in from reserves 5e style.

Fifth Edition: Made victory conditions much more interested, added outflanking and made deepstriking a reasonably safe option. Unfortunately suffered from some awful rules, especially kill points and wound allocation, not to mentioned severe codex creep. This edition also felt very Imperiocentric.

Sixth Edition: Even greater variety of missions than 5e and sensible vehicle damage rules, but suffers from poorly implemented fliers and too many randomized game rule, random charge distance being foremost among them. Still, a welcome change from 5e.

My ideal 40k would be a combination of the three editions. Wound allocation, LOS and vehicle shooting rules from 4e combined with the scoring (minus kill points), reserves, mission type and vehicle damage rules of 6e plus fixed assault distances would yield a solid rule system for 40k.

I started in 4th but really learned the game in 5th.

Honestly, I miss 5th. It played faster and, with the exception of wound shenanigans, was relativity error free.

That, and I loved my old BA razorback assault army.

i think 6th plays very well, much prefer how you dissembark now, and shooting + combat is nice and quick. I like how tacticle it has become with having to ensure you possition your troops perfectly so you don't get your special weapons killed to early.

Not to keen on some of the tank cover rules and weaker smoke launchers, but you can't have it all and on balance I think they have come up with a good edition.


The new codexes seem to be very good so far to.

2nd edition. It still had some of the mental feel of RT without the endless charts, the universe was growing and having new stuff added all of the time. Not everything was spelt out like it seems to be today (HH in particular lost a lot for me when they decided to tell the stories in depth)

Should start playing 2nd edition again really - got enough books to be able to do it.

I like the current edition best (been playing since RT). After that, 2nd edition.

BTW... your poll and your post don't ask the same question. Having avoided the so popular trend of asking one question in a title and another in the poll, you instead committed the same crime in a new way.

I've loved 6th edition so far. 3rd edition was my introduction to the hobby and I really cut my teeth on 4th edition, but I've enjoyed 6th more than anything else. I get nostalgic for 3rd (the fluff had a darker tone and GW was a lot more experimental at the time) but I wouldn't trade this era of plastic kits and flavorful rules for anything.

I started in 3rd, got out for a while, and rejoined in 5th. so many of my awesome rules disappeared when 4th hit.

Choppas limiting the enemies saves to 4+ (we didnt NEED power klaws to kill Termies)
Fleeing mobs being able to Gang up with those that were standing their ground.
Bikes getting to shoot as they assaulted (doubling their volume of fire that turn!)
the Bionik Bonce and Bionik arm.
Getting Double Initiative when we assaulted, and Sweeping advance! oh Gork do i STILL miss Sweeping advance. (Consolidate into a new assault? YES PLEASE!)
Dakka Dreads. instead of replacing guns with DCCW, we could snackrifice DCCW to twinlink guns on the Dreads.

 Lobukia wrote:
BTW... your poll and your post don't ask the same question. Having avoided the so popular trend of asking one question in a title and another in the poll, you instead committed the same crime in a new way.

I'm a master on incompetence. It was one of those 'I wasn't really thinking when I wrote that' moments.

1st ed for me. Still have the RT book, and it's a centerpiece for my RPG/Tabletop book collection. I love everything about that book, from the wacked out artwork to the weird, difficult to understand and overly complex rules.

It just had charm and character. It was more about story, setting and improvisation, rather than selling Citadel Models, Citadel Paints, Citadel Everything. Their marketing has just become ridiculously obscene now, it's like an endless infomercial, even in the rules book.

"Gee Timmy, aren't these Citadel Miniatures swell? I bet you could have even more fun painting them on your Citadel Painting Stand, with your Citadel Paints and Brushes. And don't forget to clean your Citadel Brushes in the Citadel Brush Cleaning Cup, with official Citadel De-Ionized water, blessed by The Emperor Himself!"

I get that they're a miniatures business and they need to promote to make money. But, still, RT is an awesome book and one I've read many, many times.

I do however quite distinctly remember the gameplay to be a total clusterF*. Seriously, my friends and I always ended up in bitter arguments during and after the games we played.

 gnoise wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
BTW... your poll and your post don't ask the same question. Having avoided the so popular trend of asking one question in a title and another in the poll, you instead committed the same crime in a new way.

I'm a master on incompetence. It was one of those 'I wasn't really thinking when I wrote that' moments.

No biggy, only reason I noticed was that you asked which edition we'd want to bring back and then had 6th ed as an option. I'm sure if you look at my old posts, there's probably a mismatch poll somewhere. Its just very remarkable that the vast majority of DakkaDakka polls ask one question in the title, a second in the poll, and then make a completely different point in the post... it seems to be more prevalent here than other forums... I dunno