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've been out of the loop for a long time now. What versions of 40K do people play these days? I played 2nd as a kid.

It seems they bring out a new edition every few years nowadays. When is the next version out? And which, in your opinions, is the best version? Are they strikingly different, or is it another case of GW wringing every last penny they can from the hobby?

Tanks

5th now 6th next year probably, been more of a progression from 3 to 5 with lots of small and a few not so small changes. If you want to play now go for 5th

Ah, a local boy I see.

I live in Bristol.

If you can find people who still play 2nd edition - it's vastly superior.
The problem with 2nd edition is that it's no longer supported by GW (and no Tau army book).

If you ever played Epic 40k - it's a lot more like that now, in 5th Ed. Lots of vehicles, transports for every squad is the norm amongst power gamers - but the rules are massively simplified and dumbed down. 3rd edition onwards has basically been a marketing strategy by GW to sell more minatures, particularly vehicles

As a 2nd Ed player, there will be some glaring problems with 5th you'll just have to learn to deal with.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually - that's it! It's Epic 40K with 28mm scale minatures. You can even get Baneblades and titans now (if you're rich)

karlosovic wrote: It's Epic 40K with 28mm scale minatures.

You say that like it's a bad thing - Epic 40K (not Space Marine or Epic) is one of the best games GW have ever produced.

karlosovic wrote:If you can find people who still play 2nd edition - it's vastly superior.

That's very subjective. They're pretty much completely different games.

Scott-S6 wrote:

karlosovic wrote: It's Epic 40K with 28mm scale minatures.

You say that like it's a bad thing - Epic 40K (not Space Marine or Epic) is one of the best games GW have ever produced.

I agree that Epic 40k was great fun. I loved the grand scale of it all.

Conversely, I liked 40k because it had a tactical feel. Smaller dimensions, smaller units.

I also agree that 5th edition games are a lot like trying to ham-fist Epic scale onto 28mm figs and an 8' foot table.

Sometimes games just look ridiculous from an esthetic point of view. Not to mention trying to move butt-loads of figures across a table or zipping around said 8' table in your uber powered hover tank...

The problem I have with 2nd ed is that it wasn't especially tactical at all. 4" moves and 4-turn games with no vehicles (because they were deathtraps) made for almost no manoeuvring.

Add in that characters, especially psykers, could butcher their way through whole squads effortlessly and most armies became delivery systems for the one or two genuinely dangerous models.

Yeah, I only played 3rd 4th and 5th ed, and the game is definitely getting better as it goes.

Yes, it's loosing some of its kitch and character, but it more than makes up for it in sanity. Sales strategy or not, they are actually designing the game better as they go.

I thought 4th was a step back, with the return of the gunline.

With 3rd edition onwards, the game has lost the humour, drama and bizarre occurences/luck that made 2nd edition enjoyable but it's become a much better game fundamentally.

The problem is, it's lost all its character.
I know 2nd had a lot of detracting ponts - a lot of them - but in the end it was all worth it for a game that had so much more depth and was many times more involving.

There are two things I will concede to 5th edition:
- It's not as bad as 3rd Ed
- It disallows the worst transgressions allowable in 2nd Ed

But it's kind of like Communism Vs Capitalism (that's theoretical Communism, the reality is totally useless). Sure there are some massive excesses in Capitalism and some massive inequalities are possible, but there is so much more scope for colour and flavour and freedom. Sure, 10 Wolf Guard terminators with assault cannons and cyclone missiles was massively overpowered - but not everyone used them. There's just no point in doing anything other than the state sanctioned minimum (i.e cookie cutter pred-spam lists) in communism or 5th Ed

I guess in the end it comes down to the spirit in which the game is played. If you can find people who build balanced lists and play in the spirit of a friendly game, and are willing to come up with a few house rules to improve a few flaws, 2nd Ed is waaaay more fun and interesting.
If, on the other hand, you play with a bunch of kids and/or @$$holes who WAAC (probably all you'll find at most tournaments) and always take the most lame, boring but competative lists, then 5th Ed will limit the douche-baggery and speed up the process of getting it over with (but then why are you even bothering to play?)

You know, reading this last post makes me wonder. People complain about cookie-cutter lists, and WAAC, etc. as being new. That the rulebook would inspire this strikes me as strange.

Rather than a different set of rules, this type of behavior seems to me to be a sign that 40k has gotten a lot more competitive over the years, and that people are taking it more seriously.

Perhaps the reason why 2nd ed felt more characterful and low key was because it used to be played by more characterful and low key people. Once people wanted to compete seriously, you needed a serious rules set, but that rules set being streamlined and "boring" seems to me to be the RESULT of more serious and competitive play, not the other way around.

There's a difference between 'complication' and 'detail'. While it may be consensus that a lot of the 'complication' has been 'removed', I think it's just as widely accepted that a lot of the 'detail' has been 'lost'.
For better or worse is entirely subjective.

Incidently there's one more thing I can say about 5th Ed; and that is troop carriers work a lot better now. The way they have come to dominate, however, means I can't necessarily call that a net point in favour of 5th Ed.

Ailaros wrote:You know, reading this last post makes me wonder. People complain about cookie-cutter lists, and WAAC, etc. as being new

It isn't. If you played 2nd edition in a moderately competitive environment then there were huge swathes of units that would simply never be taken (because they were terrible).