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'm enjoying 8th the most.

5th just needed an extra sentence or two to fix wound allocation (allocate all AP1 wounds first, then all AP2, then AP3 etc.), and the core rules were probably be the best they've ever been.

The issue I had with 5th was how grenades worked. They fixed it in 6th and added a lot other nicities that I felt really improved the gameplay and storybuilding so I tend to like 6th better overall. I do feel though that in terms of base ruleset 5th was the best overall. It wasnt too complicated but it wasnt too simple either so it ended up having a nice balance to it.

Barring pure nostalgia for 2nd and early 3rd I would say 8th is the one I've enjoyed the most.

Its very hard for me to pinpoint, I really liked 3rd as it was all so new to me, 4th gave me so much to customise and play with, 5th was the first real serious tourney edition i got into, 6th was terrible but gave me Horus Heresy, 7th 40k was bad, very bad so i abandoned it for 7th Horus Heresy, 8th ... I am very mixed on, I love some of it, hate other parts.

So I am going to go with 7th horus heresy.

This current version is by far and away my favorite so far. I have played since 4th though.

ERJAK wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
8th has its warts, but I have to say I've enjoyed it most.

Overall, the one thing I've learned from my years of gaming is that there is neither a perfect ruleset nor do I need to blindly follow what someone else has put together. If I don't like it - I can change it so I do.

That, and the game plays so much better at about 1,000 - 1,250 points (with no Lords O' War).

Do you play on a 4x4? Because for me 1200 points barely feels like I have anything on the table on a 6x4.

I've played on 6x4, 5x4, 4x4 and 3x3. Most games have been on 5x4, with lots of terrain to prevent cross-board shooting (I do tend to play Tau, and recognize my regular opponent likes to use a lot of melee-orientated troops).

I'd say 5th, but that's almost certainly just nostalgia. All things considered, 8th is probably a lot better, because as much as I miss the days of my Vanquishers vs. my friend's Hammerheads, that bridge has been burned by Riptides and the anime-robots, and out own getting better at the game, and isn't going to be rebuilt even if a different ruleset is adopted.

3rd. But also Rogue Trader for how free form and creative it can be.

ERJAK wrote:

Silver144 wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I played only one game of 5th, but then played 6th, 7th and 8th. Of the three 8th has the most tactical depth by far, it got rid of unnecessary bloat, tanks feel like tanks and the stratagem system is a very nice addon that actually gives you decisions. The psychic phase is also a vast improvement and I like the many possible addons for narrative play. Constant FAQs are also very appreciated, CSM waited nearly two whole editions in the dust, now OP units get adjusted pretty fast. Terrain is pretty useless in normal 8th though, but Cities of Death fixed that already.

May I ask how did the CoD fixed terrain?
Infantry still could warp through the solid walls without doors or windows, should just a tiny bit of your soldier's hat be visible behind the terrain, and suddenly the whole squad could be targeted and killed. Oh, and should just one guy stay in the open, the other 19 lose their cover bonus. Is it fixed?

Yep.

Well no, but the actual problems with CoD aren't what you complained about here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
8th, because you can't beat consistent FAQs and actual point changes.

So you call an unstable rules system an improvement??

Over flat broken rules systems that slowly got even more degraded over time?

Yeah.

So CoD fix nothing and terrain rules are still an inconsistent mess?

2nd edition was a lot of fun when it ran more like a skirmish game, it would be unusable in our larger games these days.

5th I would have to agree with others took what 3rd edition started and came up with a mature system that fixed many of the issues. It was still not perfect by any stretch but made the most of an I-go-you-go system.

6th had many good ideas that could have built-on 5th but too many things were changed that caused huge issues. That was the system I stopped buying all the codex books (too many for this edition) and I stopped getting White Dwarf. Unfortunately, that was the dark age when GW was almost exclusively about the money and little else and even created a few "pay to win" moments.

Yeah, I stopped at 6th too. I loved it. Favorite ruleset so far, but the group I was gaming with just kind of disolved around that point or switched to warmachine due to the whole dark age thing.

Only played starting in 6th but 7th had the better core rules. Problem with 7th overall was the run away power creep and GW not giving a flying zog about game balance. Looking back I would probably of liked 5th more but i didn't play in that era. 8th is absolutely terrible imo because it's so watered down and lacks tactical depth.

7th was a hellscape of horrible balance and required the players to self regulate to bring relatively equal strength armies. If you did then the gameplay was fantastic and fun. 8th by comparison might be a lot more balanced but it's boring a hell and turns into basically who goes first and mathematically has the most dakka.

7th minus all the apoc crap.

7th with 5th or 6th codecies?

I admit, I'm a bit shocked by people saying they thought 7th was "fantastic and fun" or had tons of "strategic depth". I don't know I'd claim that for almost any game of 40K. The rules have always been pretty sub-par as a wargame --- its popularity really do to the models. I enjoy playing 8th and 2nd, but even I wouldn't heap that heavy praise on the game design.

3rd through 7th was a dark period in game design in my opinion.

 Elbows wrote:
I admit, I'm a bit shocked by people saying they thought 7th was "fantastic and fun" or had tons of "strategic depth". I don't know I'd claim that for almost any game of 40K. The rules have always been pretty sub-par as a wargame --- its popularity really do to the models. I enjoy playing 8th and 2nd, but even I wouldn't heap that heavy praise on the game design.

3rd through 7th was a dark period in game design in my opinion.

Being bad doesn't stop it being fun. For example Shadow the Hedgehog is a bad game but I still love it.

As far as core rules design only, I think 7th had the best core rules and potential to make a good game. Obviously, it didn't pan out, and I think 5th edition was the best experience I had playing 40k. 3rd was fun but felt very dated (I played it around the time 6th edition came out since I kinda hated 6th) and 2nd edition was a mess as far as the rulebook was concerned. 8th has a lot of problems, and I think Games Workshop is trying to find the middle ground of simple rules vs complexity and depth. I don't think they've found it yet, and I would be lying if I said I've gotten a lot of enjoyment out of 8th edition.

So yeah, 5th edition for personal experience and expansions, 7th for core rule design and potential.

I was watching saving private ryan last night. There was a part where the soldiers holding the bridge list off all the remaining weapons and ammo they have, underlining the point that it all "may as well be spitwads if they send tanks at us". That was 5-7th, it made sense, vehicles arcs were a big thing, vehicles were very different than infantry and it was possible to have situation where you just couldn't hurt armour, as it should be. Someone at gw watched that movie and thought "this scene would be better if any weapon could hurt tanks because reasons" and 8th ed was born. Low cover and basic logic be damned, now if you'll excuse my my flyer has to assault that bunker because reasons. 8th is just bad, player's love of shiny new models will always obscure that, but it's a worse game than prior editions.

2nd Ed for me.

It was bonkers, yet playable for the most part. And it’s what I properly cut my teeth on as a Hobbyist. It was also when we saw the background properly codified from the ‘kitchen sink’ approach of Rogue Trader to the setting we know now.

Just a helluva lot of fun. 10lbs of Fun in a 5lb bag.

Another fan of 8th. I played 1st - 3rd and then drifted away to historical wargaming, it was the streamlined rules, the free intro rules card and the cheap index series that enticed me back into 40k.

8th because when a unit/codex isn't up to scratch you don't have to wait years for a new codex, it can be fixed in the next CA. Also, the most OP stuff doesn't have to stay that way. Even if those units aren't nerfed, knowing that they could be makes it less rage inducing. That's awesome.

2nd using only the army lists booklet in the box for smaller platoon-level skirmishes, or 8th using the Index books for larger company-level engagements. Epic Armageddon for regiment-level battles.

5th with a community comp/errata/scenarios

followed by 8th with index only at 1250 points

Early 8th was the best IMO. 2017 to early 2018. Or 8th Index only.

Codex power creep and esp. the Knight Codex kinda killed the at least basic balance they had going, unfotunately.

Without a shadow of a doubt, 1st edition, its where the insanity started, it had the dark humour and the depth of potential to be anything you wanted it to be.

plus with 10-20 models per side, or maybe 20-30 for a 'horde' and reasonable levels of home made terrain you could have a seriously entertaining game - with whatever level of seriousness or silliness you desired, heck 5-10 models a side fighting in a dense urban area or building worked pretty well too.

everything past that has been trying to take the basic concept and throw way more models at it.

We are now at the point 40k is less complex than 1st edition Space Marine was, and has yet to reach the same visual spectacle SM could offer.

seems to be a common problem with most games where the company writing the rules also wants to sell you models to be honest, for 40k not sure there is a solution.

At least 8th has the ability to scale downwards and work with a handful of models again pretty easily.

Enjoyed 1st, only played 2nd much later, missed 3rd, watched 4th, 5th I played, was ok, 6th was worse, 7th was terrible, 8th was what the game needed, hopefully 9th adds some of the detail and flavour back as its all getting a bit bland in terms of rules with spectacular models.

And no matter what, my Orks are most emphatically not fungus

5th was my favorite followed closely by 3.5 (using the chapter approved articles/books). 5th only needed to be tweaked by removing the wound allocation rule and putting cover saves in ruins back to a 5+.

Sadly, EVERY edition since 5th has gone further and further downhill. 6th was ok until the Escalation book was released and introduced super-heavy tanks into regular 40k games. Combine that with Knights, allies, and a wonky psychic phase, and BLAMO. The sad thing is now that GW cashed in and sold all those toys, they can’t hit a reset button and tell people not to use them. 8th edition tried to hit that button, but it now suffers from many of the same problems that 7th and 6th had. Rick Priestly gave an interview a couple years ago and was asked about what he saw with the current and future editions of 40k. He said that back in the day, they were very careful to keep the sales team separated from the game designers. They knew that if the sales guys had their way and were allowed to push the big, expensive toys in the regular game to boost sales, that it would generate a boost of revenue in the short-term, but have lasting effects to the longevity of the game.

IMO, that’s one of the reasons why so many of us enjoyed 5th edition. It was the last edition that had the 40k look and feel without being a smaller version of Apocalypse.

2nd. Probably the one I played most, and, while it wasn't perfect, with few models and lots of choices it was the most enjoyable.

8th does seem pretty good though.

Not sure if I have a favorite at this point.

8th is ok, it works and does kinda everything in a "eh good enough" manner, definitely superior to the 6E/7E disaster paradigm that ended up being the worst period of the game's history. Hardly perfect however and could definitely use significant adjustment.

5th was probably the best pre-8th edition, but was still deeply flawed with tons of major inherent problems. As much as I want to like 4th, it had even more problems (who doesn't like transports that only work if they're skimmers?).

I'd say 5th was my favorite that didn't require modifications or group agreement to curb the harshest things that could be done in game. The main change I would make to 5th would be making vehicles a little less durable. I remember a rhino managing to eat half an armies shooting and having that pretty much do nothing.