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.

What is your favorite 40k edition? And why?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
2nd. Lot's of cool fun rules.

I haven't played 6th yet, but of all the others, 2nd Ed. Not the best rule-set out there, and it had heaps of balance and mechanical problems, but no rule-set since 2nd Ed has done tanks correctly.

2nd Edition

The model count being lower meant your models felt more valuable.

And the wargear cards (while having loads of balance issues) were so fun. You could truly customize your character.

RT for me.

None of the following editions has held the same degree of WOWawesome! that RT did when I first started, though that's partly due to it being the edition I started with, and I was pretty young at the time

2nd Ed was a very close second

3rd, 4th... not so much

5th was ok, 6th is too new to know just yet.

Ascalam wrote:RT for me.

None of the following editions has held the same degree of WOWawesome! that RT did when I first started, though that's partly due to it being the edition I started with, and I was pretty young at the time

2nd Ed was a very close second

3rd, 4th... not so much

5th was ok, 6th is too new to know just yet.

Agree!

Laserburn.

RT was simply GW dumbing down the rules for 9 year-olds. :p

3rd edition; the point at which this game began to actually work.

2nd edition, when games took longer with fewer figures, it was wacky stuff. It stopped being fun after that and heading towards bigger and bigger games with less customisation and where increasingly expensive models are just put though a meat grinder. I wonder what a modern 2000 point army would be under 2nd edition? Given that a basic 10 man marine squad was 350 points, IIRC.

For me it would be Rogue Trader, no question.

Why?, well it was the first edition I bought, and it just had that WOW factor. Cool stories, cool fluff, nice pictures of miniatures. Many happy hours spent flicking through it, reading & re-reading, *sigh* Good times!

Since then each edition has failed to come even close, to the point where I haven't bothered with the last two.I Haven't gamed for years, but I still bought it for the fluff, not even worth that anymore.

6th so far.

Oh and if only there were a sub-forum to talk about and Discuss 40k. Damn.

3rd simply because it was the one I played most.

I didn't play either 3rd or 4th. But of the others, 6th is far and away the best for me, which surprises me somewhat, but is pleasing.

I've been enjoying the hell out of 6th so far, and I'm really jazzed to play again tonight! I don't want to say it's my favorite edition though, as I've only played three games of it, fun as they've been. I'd say 5th was my favorite so far, but that's only because before that I was playing 4th and I was familiar with 3rd from reading the rulebook so much. So far I like 6th better but I want more time to get an informed opinion on it.

I started playing in 3rd.

3rd was fun, but felt really clunky. 4th was the worst, as their attempts to streamline things still left things rather clunky, except they made some things horribly broken in the process (like SMF), and having every game basically be VP left a lot to be desired.

I really liked 5th ed, as I feel like it was the most streamlined of that style of rules system. Relatively lightweight and competitive, with really not all that much to complain about. I would rather have old wound wrapping than old chain-assaults or old SMF.

So far, I've only played one game of 6th, and I agree with SRM, it looks like things are going to rock. The little fluffy things they added don't appear to interfere with the game in any meaningful way while also making things more awesome. The rules themselves are a little worse than 5th (they changed some things that really didn't need fixing), but I think it might wind up being my favorite. We'll have to see, of course.

I liked 3rd the most. I haven't played 6th yet.

3rd seemed to be an era where I don't recall people complaining about balance and broken units.

However it was kinda weird to play with Terminators without an invul.

DeffDred wrote:3rd seemed to be an era where I don't recall people complaining about balance and broken units.

That's rose colored glasses for you.

Let me google that for you.

40k cheesyness with a date range of 1998 to 2001 comes up with 261 results. Here's a sample:
http://theminiaturespage.com/rules/scf/wh40ksty.html

I've been playing Warhammer 40k for a little over 2 years. I started playing the game for fun, and I have continued to play the game for that reason.

I don't believe that I'm alone when I say that there is, and always has been, an abundance of bastard players (if there are any bastard players out there, please take offense to that). These are the kind of players which bring:

a 20-man squad of Wolfguard Terminators all armed with assault cannons;
a dreadnought armed with 4 assault cannons;
every character in the codex for a 1,000 point battle
of course, all of their miniatures are usually unpainted, too
Anybody who knows a player like this will certainly agree that this type of

Automatically Appended Next Post:
You can find similar results with '40k overpowered' '40k broken' '40k balance' in that date range.

English Assassin wrote:3rd edition; the point at which this game began to actually work.

With all due respect, you are out of your mind. 3rd edition was actually a big step back for the game.

To echo what some of the others have said, I probably enjoyed RT more than any other version of the game. For all it's warts (and there were quite a few...especially toward the end when the whole thing had a "patched to death" feel to it) RT set the stage for the game we enjoy today. It introduced us to the cool backstory/fluff, the interesting models, etc. 2nd eition was probably more "polished", but for me looking back, i had more fun playing RT in the '89-93 era than at any other time in my 40k gaming "career".

TR

pretre wrote:

DeffDred wrote:3rd seemed to be an era where I don't recall people complaining about balance and broken units.

That's rose colored glasses for you.

Let me google that for you.

40k cheesyness with a date range of 1998 to 2001 comes up with 261 results. Here's a sample:
http://theminiaturespage.com/rules/scf/wh40ksty.html

I've been playing Warhammer 40k for a little over 2 years. I started playing the game for fun, and I have continued to play the game for that reason.

I don't believe that I'm alone when I say that there is, and always has been, an abundance of bastard players (if there are any bastard players out there, please take offense to that). These are the kind of players which bring:

a 20-man squad of Wolfguard Terminators all armed with assault cannons;
a dreadnought armed with 4 assault cannons;
every character in the codex for a 1,000 point battle
of course, all of their miniatures are usually unpainted, too
Anybody who knows a player like this will certainly agree that this type of

Automatically Appended Next Post:
You can find similar results with '40k overpowered' '40k broken' '40k balance' in that date range.

When I was playing 3rd the internet wasn't a big issue with wargamming.

I played at Dakka Dakka. The website wasn't even up yet.

I meant more along the people I actually faced. We didn't make broken units or exploit the rules.

Well except when the VDR came out. A certain Eldar player (You know who you are...) made a ridiculously tiny vehicle with insane weapons options.

I started playing with 2nd and we kicked around some RT games a little for fun. I would say though that 3rd into the beginning of 4th was the best. That was before Ward got his hands on the game. Those were my heavy tournament days and there was far less complaining and brokenness then there is today.

'That was before Ward got his hands on the game. Those were my heavy tournament days and there was far less complaining and brokenness then there is today.'

Methinks there is a connection there...

DeffDred wrote:When I was playing 3rd the internet wasn't a big issue with wargamming.

I played at Dakka Dakka. The website wasn't even up yet.

I meant more along the people I actually faced. We didn't make broken units or exploit the rules.

Well except when the VDR came out. A certain Eldar player (You know who you are...) made a ridiculously tiny vehicle with insane weapons options.

Interesting, I also played at Dakka in the Brick and Mortar days. The forum may not have been up, but there was certainly a website for dakka that was used to track league standings and such.

As for broken units, exploits, there were certainly things that were pretty broken in 3rd edition. Rhino rush SW with consolidating into new combats was pretty nasty back then. Exploiting the rules is difficult to tell. I know that the competitive players at DD used the rules to their full ability and made hard lists. Some people might consider that exploitation, although I don't (and didn't). I know some folks considered redemptionists pretty broken the first couple of times I threw 60+ rending attacks plus eviscerators at them, after half to 3/4 of my guys stood back up from getting shot at.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ascalam wrote:'That was before Ward got his hands on the game. Those were my heavy tournament days and there was far less complaining and brokenness then there is today.'

Methinks there is a connection there...

Not really. Each edition of the game has had broken elements. People just like to remember the past fondly and blame the faults of the current system on one person rather than on the design studio as a whole.

I recently got a free copy of Rogue Trader and I cherish it like a geek shrine. What makes it even better is when I got the books "40K Compendium" (which adds Whiteshields, Chaplains, Harlequin, etc) and the 40K Wargear book, which updates the weapons to the 2nd edition-style statlines, which I loved in games like Necromunda.

I would love to game with the basic Rogue Trader rules, but the real weak spot of them was the weapons options which didn't have any character yet- each army simply used differently looking weapons of the same type. What today is an Eldar "starcannon" was back then simply a plasma cannon made by Eldar. An Ork with a 'eavy shoota nowadays was back then just an Ork with a heavy bolter or a heavy stubber.

But that makes me really want to track down a workable amount of the paperwork to play 2nd Edition again(mostly the codexes and rules). I came in right at the tail end of it, and would like to give it a try (I loved how they dealt with vehicles, especially). The smaller model count of games made me feel like I was doing more than moving pawns across the board to soak up dice rolls, which is what I feel like since 4th edition.

The only bummer about 2nd Ed. is that as far as I know it's hard to break down the points-per-figure like in Rogue Trader and 3-6 editions, where they very obviously give each model's base cost rather then a blanket squad cost. Because what I really want to do is remove the Cohesion rules and add in the Necromunda style of handling models when they lose their last wound, so my buddy and I can play some freeform skirmish-level games of 40K. Bottle tests will be perfect for leadership tests.

Almost like 4th edition Killteam, but with 2nd edition rules. Killteam is ok (two kill teams fielded against each other is already basically 40K skirmish), but the 2nd edition weapons were much more unique in how they functioned, and the injury rules letting "dead" models making lucky rolls stand back up with a flesh wound and bottle tests handling leadership tests from Necromunda gives the game a better depth than just making a roll and removing an opponent like a simple pawn. Not to mention adding back in "sustained fire", which I still have the special dice for!

Essentially a long winded way of saying I want to play Necromunda, but with rules for the things that occur in the greater 40K games, like Orks, Eldar when their Shuriken Catapults were equal to storm bolters(!), and power armor.

I started with third, found it fun.

I loved 4th ed. The game seemed to just fit perfectly the armies I was playing.

I hated fifth. It just seemed like they took away all the fun choices and took away most of the tactical elements.

I have yet to play a game of 6th, but it doesn't look anything like 5th so I'm willing to give it a fair shot.

I have a lot of fond memories of 3rd, but probably played it the most.

RT was more of a RPG
2nd was an actual war-game, but with massive balance and power gaming issues
3rd really had two eras. It started with the giant reset button, and for a time all was mostly balanced. As more codexes were released, army creep took over and balance went out the window.
4th, 5th, and 6th are all gradual evolutions of the same game. They fixed stuff, broke other stuff, and nudged the paradigm a bit. I like what I've seen in 6th, but it really is to early to tell.

Jayden63 wrote:I have yet to play a game of 6th, but it doesn't look anything like 5th so I'm willing to give it a fair shot.

Not sure if serious...

Probably 3.5, just because of all of the fun rules for fielding specialized forces (codex appendices, WD supplements, campaign codexes, etc.). Hated the removal of this for HQ unlocking options.

I know that if my buddy and I remain playing the game, we are staying with a hybrid of 3rd/4th edition for our games. It's what nearly all of our material is from, which still lets us play the easiest with things like:

-VDR
-Chapter Approved Codexes
-Kill Teams
-etc.

Also my buddy is adamant that he won't be giving GW any more money after all he spent during 4th edition to have to buy it all over again. I will use VDR rules for most of the current vehicles that I find cool but aren't in the old books, like flyers.

Heh. How dare we pay for rules once every 4 years!

pretre wrote:

Jayden63 wrote:I have yet to play a game of 6th, but it doesn't look anything like 5th so I'm willing to give it a fair shot.

Not sure if serious...

Super serious.

No charging after running.
random charge distances
further away deployment zones
vehicles that can move full distances and still fire
return of infantry heavy lists
flyers
choice of combat weapons
HTH character placement is once again important.
No more killing stuff you cant see

It looks a lot different than 5th from where I'm standing. But like I said, I haven't actually played a game yet of 6th so I don't know, but for the first time in 4 years I'm actually looking more forward to playing the game than just talking about it.

Heh. How dare we pay for rules once every 4 years!

Oh, the bitter taste of internet sarcasm. It's not just the rules, though they are way too damn expensive at this point. It's all the supporting material that get's invalidated by every latest ruleset, and requiring people to go out and buy and paint new models just to make their armies "legal" to play with the new rules, rather than buying new material as cool additions to an already existing force.

It's primarily all the Codex books and Chapter Approved army lists that are constantly killed off by new rulebooks and the ongoing power creep that makes me not want to spend any more money. Exactly how many versions of Codex: Space Marines should I have kept buying to kep up with the latest power level?? As soon as the new one comes out, and you know it's not too long considering rules for Space marines get the most support, it'll be what, the 6th version of just that codex?

Why should I play a rules edition that won't in any fashion support some of the armies that I built for the last one? Seeing as the local scene here in West Michigan is essentially dead but for a couple of friends, we might as well keep playing the edition(s) that we have the most existing freedom with, like:

-VDR rules
-Killteam games
-Deathwatch Squads
-Cursed Company space marine armies
-Space Wolves 13th company
- Eldar "Ulthwe Strike Force" armies
-Kroot Mercenaries
-Feral Orks

Sure, the 4th edition rules have their breaks, but in the case of things like Skimmers, I don't find my two Eldar tanks and a lone Viper very game-breaking.

About the newest thing I have bought is the latest Eldar Codex (though "latest" is a bit of a misnomer") because it's leaps and bounds better than the one before it (from back in 1999). Although it was agreed that I could keep the 3rd edition entry for Nuadhu Fireheart and Iyanna Arienal as they were cool additions to the Eldar that got left behind.

Call me dumb, whatever. I personally just see that playing 4th edition rules with most of the 3rd ed "Chapter Approved" material folded in gives a player access to the largest wealth of interesting material for games and forces, while leaving out some of the latest hideously powerful versions of some armies.