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.

I can understand some people still playing RT or 2nd, or maybe even 3rd when inebriated. But why would anyone ever choose to stick with 4th when any of the other options are available? I am beyond confused.

Personally I've been playing WFB more often (it's like 40k, but with thinking). When I play 40k I use 5th edition since everyone at the FLGS plays 5th and for the simple joy of not playing 4th edition anymore.

Maybe the poll should just ask what people would prefer to play if given similar gaming
conditions: new releases and models, equal number of available opponents, equivalent
rules and official support.

So if all versions of 40k were equally supported in terms of rules support (FAQs and such),
organized play (grand tournaments, tournaments and 'ard boyz), release schedule
(new codexes), and model release, which version of the game would you actually like
to play?

lambadomy wrote:I'm thinking, in the next few weeks, we'll be playing 5th edition with some kind of different mission rules, or at least different objective missions.

If anything, the poll should have two or three options that encompass 5th edition - something like
"I'm playing 5th, and I like it"
"I'm playing 5th, because I feel I have to for tournaments/to have opponents/whatever"
"I'm playing 5th, but only until I can find some people to play something else"

You can start your own poll on how people feel about 5th, if you like. It's a valid question in response to this pool

However the notion that this poll is somehow inane is a little odd. On the Internet, it is hard to get a good read on the numbers behind a particular opinion. So when I see a lot of posts criticizing or picking at 5th, I wonder if it's not being adopted or if the feeling is widespread. So I like to ask the occasional question that doesn't require a post, just a click.

malfred wrote:So if all versions of 40k were equally supported in terms of rules support (FAQs and such),
organized play (grand tournaments, tournaments and 'ard boyz), release schedule
(new codexes), and model release, which version of the game would you actually like
to play?

The problem, of course, is that GW doesn't spread the love evenly, probably not because they don't want to, but because they likely can't afford to.

Also, the presumption of FAQs and Codices really changes the question, because GW is notorious for changing rules via FAQs and shifting balance by Codices.

So in many ways, the nebulousness of where those elements might take the editions, particuarly the early editions to which a lot of stuff would have to be added, makes it hard to answer the question.

theHandofGork wrote:I can understand some people still playing RT or 2nd, or maybe even 3rd when inebriated. But why would anyone ever choose to stick with 4th when any of the other options are available? I am beyond confused.

Personally I've been playing WFB more often (it's like 40k, but with thinking). When I play 40k I use 5th edition since everyone at the FLGS plays 5th and for the simple joy of not playing 4th edition anymore.

I think you will find a lot of people were playing 4th edition for the last four years.

It's hardly a surprise to find that most players use the current edition. GW would be out of business otherwise.

The sample size is too small to be valid, and the respondents are self-selecting, which is always a problem with statistical analysis.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Also, the presumption of FAQs and Codices really changes the question, because GW is notorious for changing rules via FAQs and shifting balance by Codices.

Is it not therefore ironic that the most recent shifting of balance is because of a lack of FAQ.

BYE

The only way to win is to not play.

H.B.M.C. wrote:At this point Syr I feel I must point out the second line in your sig.

BYE

Indeed.

Not playing. Yet!

I've been thinking about it for a while now, since I would like to start playing something bigger than skirmish games. And now with the new edition out and various good sounds coming from various corners about it all, I may just step in here.

40K is basically a skirmish game where they give you squads instead of individual figures. If you want to play a big battle game you might try Epic.

5th Edition is very much tempting me back to 40k.

Tiny little changes made quite a big difference in how you play it, and that appeals to me a lot.

If only I could settle on an army. :sigh: Still, I'll hold out for the Dark Eldar I think. Always liked the idea of a power with no real goals beyond acquiring Slaves.

H.B.M.C. wrote:What a inane poll.

Of course most people are going to be playing 5th Ed. It's almost like you're seeking vindication DD...


On an unrelated note, no, I don't play any of the items in the poll there. I play a superior set of rules written by a group of people who's primary goal isn't the selling of miniatures.

BYE

First off. I totally agree on the first point... But second I want to know... What Game are you playing?

bye... LOL

EDIT: If you say Spine Spur I will just shoot Myself NOW.

George Spiggott wrote:If I could I'd play RT (pre vehicle+wargear books) all the time. with only a few modifications it would be the best version of 40k.

I support HBMC's opinion of the poll. It would be better without the 5th edition entry as we can take it as given that many people will be playing 5th. As it is it tells us nothing.

Disallowed words would be very un-Dakka.

But then we could have a poll for each disallowed word, to see if it should be disallowed or not. 1 poll for each word in the English language would suffice for starters, then we could move on to other languages. This would be kinda like a good old fashioned book burning. Ahh yes that brings back memories, roasting marshmallows over Kurt Vonneguts Slaughterhouse-Five...

Or we could just accept that those who do not agree with H.B.M.C. are scum with no more right to live on Gods clean earth than a particularly scrotey Weasel?

Certainly, I feel like a Cretin for daring to enjoy a games system he does not.

BYE.

I think 5th rocks.

Add me to those who have questioned the validity of a poll that seeks to prove that the most commonly played version of a game is the most current version on a site that is populated by fans of said game!

That being said, I am split. I currently play both 2nd edition and 5th edition. I'm not a big fan of the changes to 40k that 3rd edition brought but of all the post-2nd edition rules sets, 5th is the best of the lot. But I mostly play it because if you want an easy pick up game outside of a small core group or want to participate in competative gaming, you pretty much have to stay current. Despite this, a small group of us have recently started playing 2nd edition yet again. We have found that if you don't over-scale it (ie limit your games to reasonable amounts such 1500-2000 points) and have gentlemen's agreements not to use things like virus grenades, it plays very well, with far more flavor than anything that has come since.

TR

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Or we could just accept that those who do not agree with H.B.M.C. are scum with no more right to live on Gods clean earth than a particularly scrotey Weasel?

God! Finally someone gets it. I've only been spelling it out since I joined here. Took you guys long enough to notice.

Thankyou Grotsnik for making my day. Also mind the strawman on your way out, he's flinging ad hominems like a motherfether.

BYE

JohnHwangDD wrote:

malfred wrote:So if all versions of 40k were equally supported in terms of rules support (FAQs and such),
organized play (grand tournaments, tournaments and 'ard boyz), release schedule
(new codexes), and model release, which version of the game would you actually like
to play?

The problem, of course, is that GW doesn't spread the love evenly, probably not because they don't want to, but because they likely can't afford to.

Also, the presumption of FAQs and Codices really changes the question, because GW is notorious for changing rules via FAQs and shifting balance by Codices.

So in many ways, the nebulousness of where those elements might take the editions, particuarly the early editions to which a lot of stuff would have to be added, makes it hard to answer the question.

I was just thinking that no one would actually ignore the latest edition as that would limit
the number of available players. Then as the limitation goes on, the pool gets smaller
and smaller and smaller.

So I'm more interested in what people would prefer to play, given equal support. Of course
I know that GW never would spread the support. That would defeat the purpose of having
newer editions of the game.

I play 5th edition.
I play it because my group plays it.
I play it because I enjoy it.

I've only played 6-8 games, so far, so I haven't completely come to an opinion on it, but it will be pretty hard for my opinion to become negative.

With few exceptions, I like the new rules.

My complaints are with GW's prices and handling of codex releases, NOT the system.



Now that I've completed my ON topic comment, I have something else to say. I won't go off topic in this thread again, once I've said it.

Any society will have rules. Any community will have rules. Anyone who wants to be a part of said society or community should abide by those rules or just keep moving. It is not a difficult concept to grasp.

Perhaps, H.B.M.C.... Just, perhaps your constantly snide demeanor, haughty commentaries, & disdainful and disrespectful way of treating anyone who happens to disagree with you (or almost anyone) is the problem here.
Some people just get tired of seeing it.
Your gloating about how you play a ruleset which is gloriously superior to 40K is, seemingly, constantly spouted. Yet, you can't seem to stay out of 40K threads. You can't seem to stop talking about the game. You can't seem to just let it drop.

It seems to me that you just like to have something to complain about and/or insult. It seems like you're trying to create *THAT* persona for yourself on the internet.

Let me tell you what. There ARE people out here who don't want to see it and don't want to read it. Those people PREFER a community where, even in disagreement, people do their best to stay respectful towards one another.

*I* reported your initial post in this thread. I complained about its' nature. I don't know if that was the onus for your warning. I don't care. I'm glad you were warned. It's not the first time I've reported unnecessarily rude posts (yours and others), and it won't be the last.
I'm not the only person who is tired of seeing the that gets allowed on forums. I'm not the only one who complains. I'm just one of the few who's willing to stand up and say, "I did it. I reported you and I'll do it again, if necessary."

Eric

I really like 5th edition, in so far as official versions go. I think it really cleaned up a lot of awkwardness, and actually made official a lot of little things we were doing anyway, like allocating wounds instead of going by majority save, etc.

Really though, I think if they had used HBMC's revisited rules as a template that would have helped a bit too. I really liked a lot of those ideas, but I don't think I can get my group to really convert over.

Then again, I have a handfull of thoughts for other changes that would be good too, like interspersed turn phases, that I am going to try and execute in my basement.

malfred wrote:I was just thinking that no one would actually ignore the latest edition as that would limit the number of available players. Then as the limitation goes on, the pool gets smaller and smaller and smaller.

So I'm more interested in what people would prefer to play, given equal support. Of course I know that GW never would spread the support. That would defeat the purpose of having newer editions of the game.

What's interesting is, at the moment (and for the foreseeable future), there are 3 (and a half) versions that one could choose to play (with somewhat varying levels of success) with the current Codices and army lists. That is, one could choose to use the 3E (original / trial), 4E, or 5E rules, with a mix of Codices, and they all more-or-less work together. That's really somewhat unprecedented, and provides the opportunity for players to hold out longer than one might imagine.

Maybe GW ought to Open Source the core rules engine???

Warhammer 40k is a nice little proprietary game, but in the open source market you actually have to be worth playing beyond the store/tournament limits.

@Nurglitch, it's no different from how WotC open sourced the 3E core ruleset for D&D.

Except D&D game mechanics had some value. All 40k's value is in the toy soldiers and the fluff.

With regard to open sourcing....

I belive we may have seen some sort of experiment into that in the 3rd Edition Tyranid Codex, with the Mutable Genus.

And what happened? People got the wrong end of the stick, and just made the hittiest bugs they could for the lowest cost possible etc... Same with Mutations. Intended as a little treat for modellers, Hive Node (the LD10 one) might as well have been a compulsory upgrade, followed by the Scrapping of the Synapse rules...

Sadly, as the community has proven several times (if you count the later VDR and TDR rules as well) it is simply not to be trusted.

Basically what the Gorgeous Spiggott said.

Moreover, the proprietary nature of the miniatures will restrict an open license of the rules. The rules are basically there to sell you models, not the other way around. GW has shown that it can't keep up with the demand for models to match all the lists it had for 4th edition (Lost and the Damned, etc).

An open license fits into GW's business model like a finely crafted bust of financial art fits into a wheel of cheese.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:And what happened? People got the wrong end of the stick, and just made the hittiest bugs they could for the lowest cost possible etc... Same with Mutations. Intended as a little treat for modellers, Hive Node (the LD10 one) might as well have been a compulsory upgrade, followed by the Scrapping of the Synapse rules...

Sadly, as the community has proven several times (if you count the later VDR and TDR rules as well) it is simply not to be trusted.

Or maybe the Tyranid list rested on mutable genus and mutation crutches because the core list was flawed.

VDR was yet another GW good idea that was badly implemented. Vehicle costs were wildly disproportionate to game utility (in both directions) and some of the game mechanics involved were simply badly thought out. GW was pretty uninterested in fixing that.

VDR could have been a brilliant showpiece for people’s home constructions (of which I built several examples using VDR) and VDR would have benefited from the flow of genuine feedback that would have been a result of this. Instead it died off, like the half finished half tested work that it was.

Forgeworld used to claim that they use VDR to create their vehicle rules; this is patently untrue, unless they're using a secret version of it. Forgeworld could really do with someone who can write consistently good vehicle rules.

An alternative version of 40k created by someone other than GW (or even GW at this point) that is respected by ‘the community’ is a pipedream, the 40k. I assume that splitting the 40k demographic to make an ‘advanced 40k’ isn’t perceived to be worth GW’s time, money and some may say ability. It isn’t true of course look at Epic Armageddon, a game born out of just such a situation. I do find it odd how I never hear anyone inside GW praise Epic Armageddon, preferring to praise the dubious merits of Epic 40,000 (which was terrible).

RT vs. 5th - some thoughts: An internet based revamping of Rogue Trader would be simple and (more importantly) cheap for GW to do and would make money for GW both directly (through figure sales) and indirectly (through word of mouth). The template for a system to do this has already got a proven record with Epic Armageddon.

It’s not actually that 5th edition is so much worse than 4th that makes me dislike it, it’s that with 4th I believed that 5th was around the corner and that things would get better. I now know that they won’t get better for another four years and probably not even then.

I still mostly play 4th edition, but that's because I'm simply too poor and busy to upgrade to 5th. I play rather a lot of 2nd edition on the side, too.

@ MagickalMemories: I've disagreed with HBMC on quite a few occasions. I'm sure that my enthusiasm for Jervis's design skills is anathema to him, but he's never treated me with disrespect. And I find his sarcastic wit to be a hell of a lot more amusing than your moralizing.

Truthfully, the fluff frelling sucks. I mean, I kinda dug it when I was just out of High School, and some of the art is okay in a "I love metal so much I paint fantasy scenes on my van" kinda way, but really, think about it for a few minutes, and you realize it's all derivative nerf-poopy. I mean, most sci-fantasy is, so in that sense I guess it's not too bad, but what does it say that the high point of GW 40k backstory was when they didn't take themselves so gosh-darned seriously? And it's not even like they can keep the whole jumbled mess straight either...

Sorry, sorry. Anyhoo.

I think 3rd ed., before the codicies came out, when it was just one book, was probably as close to perfect as the game was going to get. I miss the devil-may-care feel of 2nd ed., and 4th just makes me sad (though COD and Kill Team make me happy).

Until someone decides whether it's a true army level game at too large a scale or a skirmish game...well, enough. I've said my peace. I'll give 5th a try, but I've seen and played good games and I don't feel a need to go back just for the sake of going back, and certainly not for 'fluff'.