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.

It's a very simple question, and one I'm undecided on. Which edition had the best fluff?

I'd go for third.
I'm probably biased as that's when i got into 40k and I have rose tinted glasses of the days I was young enough to think fluff was cool at all, but that's when all the modern armies really solidified thematically and the 13th black crusade is still pretty much the most progressed and interesting the 40k fluff has gotten.
Stuff prior to that is largely disregarded or constantly being retconned, and stuff after that is almost exactly the same with the notable exception of the necron re-write.

Oh and the 3rd ed eldar dex had that tablet in the back that had a little skull rune for 'soulless ones' or whatever for necrons except it didn't have a clunky skull like the original clunky crons it was the modern longer gaunt necron skull but the eldar dex was 3 years before the 3rd edition necron codex revealed them with their modern gaunt skull look. That gave me a big nerd boner back in the day when i noticed it.

3rd was probably the darkest edition, so I'm leaning towards it. However, it lacked some of the humor of Rogue Trader and 2nd.

3rd had great rulebook fluff (it was my introduction to the game after all) but the codices were anemic. It was a lot more serious though, which was cool. Personally I'm a fan of 2nd ed's grimdark Saturday morning cartoon aesthetic though. 5th has had a reintroduction of a lot of this though.

I liked Third because the fluff was great, but also because the late 3rd-edition style (and early fourth) codices had the most fluffy rules ever.

IG Doctrines
Chaos Legions
SM Chapter Traits
etc.

Also, THE ARMORY!!!!

I get most nostalgic for 2nd edition as that was when I began, and the codex books were great. However, I think that the RT Fluff is the best overall. It's the most diverse, creative fluff 40k ever had. Also in contrast to more recent editions which try to define everythign it leaves many areas open for interpretation and exploration.

I consider 3-5th Fluff to be pretty much the same thing. The flavor didn't change too much, and neither did the rules.

3rd Rulebook, 4th Codex. That's how the fluff worke dout for me.

Rogue-Trader/early 2nd and 5th. I was a big, big fan back in the day. Lost interest due to the overtly pretentious direction they headed into with 3rd and 4th. 5th brought alot of the magic back.

It's pretty interesting that 3rd is twice as popular as 5th. I have to agree that 3rd was better.

I would vote for 3rd as a CSM player.. We had an awesome codex back then.
Hope we get a fluffy updated codex now. But who cares..
Let the Galaxy BURN!!!!

LoneLictor wrote:3rd was probably the darkest edition, so I'm leaning towards it. However, it lacked some of the humor of Rogue Trader and 2nd.

Didn't start till 5th, what was so dark about 3rd?

Buttons wrote:

LoneLictor wrote:3rd was probably the darkest edition, so I'm leaning towards it. However, it lacked some of the humor of Rogue Trader and 2nd.

Didn't start till 5th, what was so dark about 3rd?

5th is more upbeat than the other editions. If you read the fluff on the Ultramarines or Space Wolves or Imperial Guard, you can clearly tell that those guys are good guys. In 3rd edition, everyone was horrible and the universe was doomed, but it was in a half serious half humorous way at times. Also in 3rd Chaos got more attention, which made it more grimdark obviously.

2nd ed.

Matt Ward hadn't graduated from crayons yet (some would argue he still hasn't) and so was not yet allowed to sully and besmirch the game with his guff.

3rd was anaemic when it came to codex fluff. 4th likewise and 5th is just taking the piss.

2nd edition or RT for sure. Yah there were less armies but they had a more fluffy feel to them. The codexes were awesome, and it just felt like more variety between armies. 5th feels like their trending back in that direction with a better game play model. So I'm hoping for the best with 6th Ed. FYI 3rd was the worst edition ever.

chromedog wrote:
3rd was anaemic when it came to codex fluff.

Very much agreed. The 3rd edition rulebook was quite good for fluff, pics and even army lists. Not to mention that it was full size, in a box set with real multipart minis for a reasonable price! (but I digress....)

The 3rd edition codices -which are how I judge the fluff of a given edition- were tiny compared to the massive tomes of 2nd ed. The 3rd ed Blood Angel and Dark Angel codices together were considerably smaller than the combined BA/DA "Angels of Death" 2nd ed. Codex.

As mentioned before, I don't see much to differentiate the overall fluff of 3-5th ed, especially since the black library has published many series that overlap those editions, and the full has been slowly evolving rather than drastically changing. One thing I will give to 3-5th edition is that BL has made it -if not my favorite- by far the deepest era of 40k fluff and background.

aka "When did you get into 40k".

Joey wrote:aka "When did you get into 40k".

Apparently so with all the 3rd edition votes. You guys really enjoyed the stories they packed in those <50 page codex's huh?

I think there is some confusion here between:

which edition had the best fluff (in the sense of stories in the books, etc) versus which edition reflected the fluff the best (in the sense of field-able armies).

I voted for 3rd Edition because I believe that it had the fluffiest fieldable armies of the greatest number, or at least certainly the late 3rd / early 4th codices did.

I miss my doctrines, at least from a fluff point of view.