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.

Hello dakka, I'm curious, what edition of 40k do you like the best?
All of us have different tastes, and expect different things out of our game.
I feel bad for those people who started playing during 6th/7th ed, because they missed, what I feel, the best days of 40k.
for me, 5th ed was the peak of the game.
it was ultra streamlined, there was little randomness, and less micro management than the current game. Plus, it was faster.

It had faults...line of sight was iffy, wound allocation was weak, independent characters were immortal, and some would say that tanks were over powered (I disagree strongly).

I still play 5th edition exclusively.
I have played 15 games of 6th, and 12 games of 7th.... they just don't do it for me. 2000pts in either edition takes nearly 5 hours to finish up, not counting the arguing ovet rules ambiguity.

My games of 5th never take more than 2 hours per 1000 points.

Enough of me glorifying my favorite version... which is yours? Why?

Thanks
austin

And leading the charge for most number of threads for a single topic? This one! Yay!

Not that it will stop me. Who doesn't love this question?

4th edition. Model sizes, Terrain sizes, Area terrain, simple casualty removal. Good stuff.

6th.

Warlord traits, the ability to THROW grenades instead of use them as clubs, overwatch, and allies are all additions I think enhance the game to a great degree.

I joined the hobby at the beginning of 6th, and while there were a few good rule sets hidden in that strange edition overall I prefer 7th.

The only post similar to this one that I have made was one asking what draws people to 40k.

On topic:
I can agree to 4th being a good edition. I had a lot of fun playing with 4th.
the things listed for 6th are what made me not like it.
shooting with grenades is cool, and over watch is cool... that is it though. The other things are junk, IMHO.
Allies broke the game, over watch is good but paired with random charging sucks, warlord traits are random and often uselss.

What do other people think?

Thanks
Austin

I think fixed warlord traits are better, and detachment rerolls help with randomness. (More detachments should grant a specific trait, a la Haemonculus Covens)

 docdoom77 wrote:
And leading the charge for most number of threads for a single topic? This one! Yay!

Not that it will stop me. Who doesn't love this question?

4th edition. Model sizes, Terrain sizes, Area terrain, simple casualty removal. Good stuff.

^

Each edition has had some critical pitfalls, and each has brought some good stuff to the table.

My personal favorite, is 5th. I'm always surprised to hear myself say that, but, as an edition, it had probably the best overall balance (not that balance was ever great), with most imbalance lying at the codex, rather than core rules level. Yes it had problems with wound allocation, average cover saves being way too high, Kill Points, absurdly punitive Vehicle Squadron rules and vehicle movement/shooting, as well as Transports not caring about 5/6 glancing results and 3/6 penetrating results, but overall it was probably the most functional edition.

4th had some fundamental issues that simply made certain armies/builds non-functional. Skimmers had absolutely massive advantages over non-skimmers, and this domination further enhanced by codex bonuses (e.g. Vectored Engines, Holofields, Dirsuption Pods, etc). LoS and Area Terrain rules combined with the ability to consolidate into new combats often meant that, particularly with things like jump infantry/jump MC's/infiltrators/etc, that an opponent might never get to shoot at an enemy assault unit throughout the entire game as they were able to hide from fire turns 1 and 2, and simply consolidate into new combats or win combat on opponent's-turn, and never face a shot. Transports for non-skimmers were non-functional deathtraps that simply could not be used in most instances as anything but mobile terrain, and codex imbalance for the edition was quite stark. That said, wound allocation, vehicle defensive weapons rules Victory Points etc were all much nicer tan 5th.

6E introduced tons of random new tables, reintroduced the skimmer/non-skimmer gap, added in HP's which effectively turn vehicles into Toughness/Wound units without the benefit of an armor save, and really poorly implemented FMC's and Flyers, greatly neutering dangerous terrain and deep strike mishaps, along with a rather absurd allies table, brought in the totally pointless Challenge mechanism, incredibly dampening Nightfight rules shoved into each and every mission, an overly powerful Jink ability, and more. It did introduce some cool stuff, psychic powers becoming standardized and more defined was a good move, the changes to Rapid Fire weapons was great, and the concept of Snapshots was a good introduction.

7E doubled-down on the more insane aspects of 6E without really addressing any of its problems. It's harder and harder to find games these days and games take longer than they did in the past. Something we've noticed at tournaments locally is that, largely no matter what shows up, games are either increasingly one sided or going to time.


Personally, I'd take 5E, use 4E wound allocation, 4E Victory Points, add in some 7E Eternal War missions, the 7E rapid fire and snapshot rules, maybe a couple other things, and you'd have a great overall edition.

Vaktathi, let's make that edition.
it sounds fun, balanced, and overall NOT BROKEN

Thanks
austin

My two favorites are Rogue Trader and 2nd ed.

Rogue Trader for the sheer wackiness that it included.

Various models rolling -random- stats before a game? Check!

Harlequin Land-Raiders? Check!


2nd Edition started the real codex-craze. Some would call that a 'bad thing', but it's hard to argue that it hasn't had a major impact on editions since.

I loved the variable movement rates, and weapon damage mods to saving throws. None of this AP crap that amounts to an 'invuln save' against weapons of higher AP.


3rd edition arrived and that's when I took my break to play Warzone.

2nd Edition for me. Not necessarily the best edition, but probably the most enjoyable as GW still cared about their customers and their product in those days.

Another 2e fan here. Even the scariest monster/hero wasn't a huge deal when a lascannon could deal 2-12 wounds and only terminator armour offered any protection.

Pancake edition always seemed like the best to me. I wish it was the real deal.

5th was the best for me.

6th. Aliies and overwatch. Flyers too, I like my model planes.
I like 7th psychik phase but Jink got worse and I use Jink alot. So 6th probably better.

MarsNZ wrote:
Another 2e fan here. Even the scariest monster/hero wasn't a huge deal when a lascannon could deal 2-12 wounds and only terminator armour offered any protection.

Ork Death Skulls mobs armed with nothing but Lascannons still gives me nightmares ...

2nd edition sounds ridiculously fun... and ridiculously... well ridiculous!
Any of you guys who play/played 2nd ed in northern ohio?

Thanks
Austin

 Redbad wrote:
2nd edition sounds ridiculously fun... and ridiculously... well ridiculous!

It was, that was part of the appeal imo. You get people crying about balance incessantly these days. In those days nobody really cared, it was just good fun and GW actually seemed to care about its customers to boot.

Actually have a 2e game coming up here at some point, a friend and I dust it off once a year or so. The skirmish style rules allow for crazy interactions. For instance in last years game a bright lance sliced an arm off my dreadnought causing a chain of explosions to spread through the torso and immobilising it. Rather than dying, it became enraged, wiping out a squad of Guardians and Dark Reapers with its twin-linked heavy bolters (which back then, were scary - up to 6 shots and d4 damage per wound)

 Redbad wrote:

Thanks
Austin

Why don't you include this phrase in your signature if you always write it anyways?

 BioVass wrote:

 Redbad wrote:

Thanks
Austin

Why don't you include this phrase in your signature if you always write it anyways?

Because I always type it out.
I worked for a newspaper for 2 years, and had to sign everything.
It's just a habit at this point.
I used to capitalize the first letter of every word too, another work habit.

Thanks
austin

MarsNZ wrote:

 Redbad wrote:
2nd edition sounds ridiculously fun... and ridiculously... well ridiculous!

It was, that was part of the appeal imo. You get people crying about balance incessantly these days. In those days nobody really cared, it was just good fun and GW actually seemed to care about its customers to boot.

Actually have a 2e game coming up here at some point, a friend and I dust it off once a year or so. The skirmish style rules allow for crazy interactions. For instance in last years game a bright lance sliced an arm off my dreadnought causing a chain of explosions to spread through the torso and immobilising it. Rather than dying, it became enraged, wiping out a squad of Guardians and Dark Reapers with its twin-linked heavy bolters (which back then, were scary - up to 6 shots and d4 damage per wound)

It probably helped that the game didn't cost a fraction of what it does now. With super high costs come super high expectations. I am not sure more recent editions of 40k have really improved on the experience, but they have certainly increased the cost of said games.

I would say 5th was my favorite. It was the most popular age of the game, with the greatest number of players and the best opportunity to play. Any of the benefits of the more recent rule sets have been offset by the significant loss of player base. I also enjoy 3rd for what it offered in a more reasonably-sized game, but 5th basically had everything the recent editions have minus the attempts to extract more cash from the customer base.

5th edition has been the most enjoyable for me. Games felt so much faster then and I could play higher point games much more frequently. And I miss the oldcron codex since that was our codex for most of 5th edition. Almost as difficult as dark eldar to play, especially with the Phase Out special rule. They weren't the point and click army they seemed to become with Wardcrons and Newcrons.

 Accolade wrote:

MarsNZ wrote:

 Redbad wrote:
2nd edition sounds ridiculously fun... and ridiculously... well ridiculous!

It was, that was part of the appeal imo. You get people crying about balance incessantly these days. In those days nobody really cared, it was just good fun and GW actually seemed to care about its customers to boot.

Actually have a 2e game coming up here at some point, a friend and I dust it off once a year or so. The skirmish style rules allow for crazy interactions. For instance in last years game a bright lance sliced an arm off my dreadnought causing a chain of explosions to spread through the torso and immobilising it. Rather than dying, it became enraged, wiping out a squad of Guardians and Dark Reapers with its twin-linked heavy bolters (which back then, were scary - up to 6 shots and d4 damage per wound)

It probably helped that the game didn't cost a fraction of what it does now. With super high costs come super high expectations. I am not sure more recent editions of 40k have really improved on the experience, but they have certainly increased the cost of said games.

To an extent perhaps, but getting into the game back in 2nd was still a daunting prospect financially. The boxed game, dark millenium and codex came to over £70. A decent amount of money for a fourteen year old in the mid-nineties. And that's obviously before you've bought a model. It was always an expensive hobby.

In fact, (sub annual codex life cycles aside) I think it could be argued that it's not much more expensive now. Could even argue better value now, considering the quality of the kits these days.

On topic though, 2nd edition for me by a mile.

*Caveat - never played 3rd, 4th or 5th....

 Redbad wrote:
2nd edition sounds ridiculously fun... and ridiculously... well ridiculous!
Any of you guys who play/played 2nd ed in northern ohio?

Thanks
Austin

NE Ohio here
All except my very last game which was back in 2001-2002 were 2nd ed.

I miss the variety you could have in your squads each model could be armed completely different, all weapons were completely unique. A las pistol had different stats than a hand flamer which also had different stats than a bolt pistol, etc.

Overwatch made sense (if you didn't move a squad they could go into overwatch, then at any point during your opponent's turn, you could do normal shooting at your opponent with that squad) which made running from cover to cover dangerous.

Tanks didn't outnumber troops on the battlefield and were something to be feared.

Force organization made more sense and kept high powered, high cost units that couldn't be countered out of small games.

Sure it was a little more complex at first, but once you got the hang of the rules, it moved along pretty quick, and their quick reference rules sheet (1 card sheet front and back had all the basic rules of the game) kept from having to flip through the rulebook consistently, especially when combined with their 2nd sheet that had all the weapon stats for every army in a nice little list. With those 2 sheets, you pretty much never had to pick up the rulebook.

There's a bunch more but I'm at work so I should keep this short!

40k is not effectively that much more expensive than it was back when I got into the game in '98.

I enjoyed second, but it was effectively an entirely different game. I think that seventh is probably the best edition of 'modern' 40k.

I remember when I was first introduced to warhammer back in 92-93.

My brother had just gotten back from his friend's house where he had just played it for the first time and had scribbled down some army lists on a piece of paper. At that time I had picked up the battle masters game as I was just getting into miniatures due to some very cool dioramas I had seen in a game magazine.

Anyways, he explained to me how to build units from the lists and we used the battle masters figures to play a game. After that, I was hooked.

2nd ed for me...I played most of my 40k games with this edition. And yes, I did take wolf guard termies with cyclone AND assault cannon and usually did well with a virus bomb or two.

A lot also had to do with the fluff. A bit leaner than RT but still satisfyingly bonkers.

2nd for me too. Happiest memories of it and had a great group of gaming friends that were literally obsessed with 40k at the time. We used to run games 3-4 times a week. Lucky to get that once a month now :(

Early 3rd, before the codex creep really took off. 3rd was back when I was young and free, so has more nostalgia going for it then the newer editions. I’ve enjoyed every version of 40k from RT to now.

Every edition of 40k has has some horribly broken things. I think 4th was a more solid rule set then 3rd, and the broken things in it bothered me less, But I recall the codexes being a little out of wack, which kinda soured things.

2nd ed, as it was the last version of the game that was in synergy with the background,IMO.

The rules were one 'clean up' away from a good large skirmish game.
(Eg The rules Rick and co were working on before they had to accommodate the model count increase the sales department forced on them at the eleventh hour.)

The battle game with out dated skirmish rules (40k 3rd ed on-wards.)Has too many issues at its core to be anything but poorly balanced and over complicated.

I much rather play Epic for massive battle in the 40k universe.(Lots more fun, fewer pages of rules and lots more tactical depth and game play balance.)