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.

Since there are currently a lot of passionate posts about which edition actually was the best, I'm curious about what the majority of people here thinks.

I liked 5th edition a lot, then it went downhill with 6th, in 7th I quit the game and sold my orks. Luckily the guy who bought them never showed up to get them, and I was quite happy to still have them when 8th hit.

I think 8th is the best edition so far, as it got rid of a lot things that made both 6th and 7th unfun, plus games are faster now.

Please stay polite, even if this is an emotional topic.

The one I started with or the veterans of the time said it was the best one.

Still not sure I can render judgement on 8th.

Outside of that, 5th was probably the best, though still deeply flawed in many ways and by no means perfect, but probably the easiest to fix. I keep wanting to like 4th...but it had too many core systemic rules issues, though the 4E book itself is probably one of the best reads.

7th was the worst. An incomprehensible mess of randomness for its own sake, nakedly marketing driven rules (buy our exclusive web bundle and get these insanely broken rules for free!), inconsistent design philosophies, lazy rules writing, awful fluff, and eight gajillion rules sources that would have cost several thousand dollars to actually acquire in total.

I've followed Warhammer 40k for years, but the nature of the ruleset prevented me from actually playing until 8th dropped. For all the mess the meta is with only half the codexes out, the game is much friendly and less antagonistic than it has been in years past.

Rough call, but I would probably consider it a tossup between 5th or 7th. 7th in terms of the number of factions that could build winning lists, 5th in terms of what those lists actually contained.

Both systems had their flaws of course. 7th had Invisibility and rerollable cover, and over 80+ USRs, while anti-psi in 5th was a bit too good, the casualty allocation system was wonky (musical wounds, 50% cover, Go to Ground required physically turning models on their sides) and there were notable trouble powers. People that look on 5th with rose-tinted glasses usually weren't playing Tyranids, as Jaws horror stories attest.

That said, I did prefer Challenges in 7th over the finicky model-wrangling of 5th where Independent Characters were resolved as a "separate unit" in melee. And 5e Tank Shock was hilarious, to be frank. The weakened vehicle damage chart, alongside "no hull points" made Eldar versus Eldar the derpiest mirror match.

"All our guns are S6!"
"All our vehicles are AV 12!"
"Uhh...we can't really damage each other with shooting."
"But we can inflict S10 hits on each other if we Ram from a really far location."

Note, I generally tend to prefer when games emphasize "midfield control" rather than gunlines and DZ-camping/excessive alphastrikes. So in that regard, 40k has been increasingly flawed as the scale of the game creeps upwards.

I really enjoyed 4th and am really enjoying 8th.

4th was good because of the details: Things like Str 5 or less weapons being "Defensive Weapons" for tanks was a neat detail that was missing from later editions, and it's the only edition where I felt like vehicles relied on their armour (rather than some arbitrary number of hit points or the sheer bloody stupidity of a single Damage Chart (in which ~50% of the results were "lol you done a shoot good 4 u!") for protection, and it worked fairly well. The codices were awesome (doctrines, chapter traits, legion rules) and Allies existed but were fairly limited (an Inquisitor in a Land Raider joining my armoured company with a Baneblade was awesome).

Issues were pretty bad though: Close Combat was ridiculously OP, to the point where you could table in army in 1 turn if you got stuck in, and transports were deathtraps for their crews, and balance was fairly schitzophrenic.

I also really love 8th because of the tactics: I know some people disagree with me, but I do think 8th edition finally abstracts out a lot of the bs you had to deal with in earlier editions that didn't make sense (like vehicle facings - if you're playing a company scale game, then you're a company commander. I don't think a company commander would micromanage the facing and fire-arcs of every single damn vehicle. He would order vehicles to positions, and then expect the platoon and tank commanders to get it right when they got there). I think it makes for a more strategic game on the whole - rather than "Gotcha!" moments like taking advantage of a slightly pivoted tank to get side armour, or essentially ignoring the enemy shooting because your psyker had invisibilty, the movement and targeting of units is really important.

Issues: Board space. 8th edition simply does not have enough. It is a more tactical game, for sure, but the sheer density of gak on the board makes it very hard to have meaningful tactics; if, in a master stroke of genius, you wipe out the enemy's left flank and achieve a breakthrough.... you run right into his right flank, who are essentially one Movement Phase away from being his left flank again. This is the only super major sour spot of 8th for me. Other issues: the Character keyword is OP as gak unless you have more than 10 wounds and suddenly it might as well be the "Derp!" keyword.

4th for clarity and tournament readiness. Also, I don’t feel th imbalances were as bad in that edition.

8th for fun.

Worst was 7th. Broken and crappy.

8th is best. 5th is second best. 7th is worst - followed by 6th. Didn't play before 4th

Voted 8th, but I can only really compare 6-7-8.

Disclaimer: I play for fun, and for narrative with like-minded people. I'm happy to allow a fluffy action outside of the rules, don't give a damn about mathhammer, and generally want to have a fun action movie played out in my games. House rules are included, actions are carried out more because they're "awesome" than because it's the 2.4% more likely chance to do X. I look at a game as a chassis upon which to create my own version of the game. While I abide by most rules, rules always give way to story.

So, for that reason I voted 2nd, followed by 8th.

Having said that...40K has never been a good rules set. Ever. It's never been balanced, will never be balanced, and is in many regards and awful rule set when compared to a heap of other wargames. But, as a platform for providing a fun evening of rolling dice? It's plenty.

5th for me
- didnt have the complicated bloat of 6/7th
- but was more indepth than 8th
- most armies that I recall were balanced enough
- decent set of core rules
- easy enough to play

It wasnt perfect as mentioned but it was very solid. Too early to tell with 8th imo.

I'll agree with Elbows - the GW team has never really had a "great" ruleset for 40k. I thought 3e and 4e were alright, and there were some great ideas but typically not executed well. Looking at you, Doctrines...

I'll also Echo Elbows a bit in that I do like fluffy games. I also like depth and options and for things to have meaning - and the two can connect pretty easily. Our armies should tell stories in their stats, their equipment, their unit choices. Our battles should tell the tales of the gods of war.

I'll disagree with Unit1126PLL, though, in that I preferred facing having some meaning to it. Sure, we're "Company Commanders", but in my mind we're also every unit on the table.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Issues: Board space.

What size tables are you having issues with?

I remember watching a game in 5th (?) - the last time I paid any attention before 8th - and seeing someone's guard army nearly shoulder-to-shoulder at 2k points for about 6'...

One of the great things about 15mm scale.

M.

6x4.

The normal 6x4 boards are far too small for superheavy tank companies, regular tank companies, Space Marine orbital assaults, and pretty much everything that isn't "line up and blaze away at eachother" or "line up and charge screaming at eachother" like napoleonics.

Napoleonics have to have room for ouflanking lol.

Martel732 wrote:
Napoleonics have to have room for ouflanking lol.

Well, okay, like /bad/ napoleonics.

What is your plan?

Why, to defeat the French.

Started at the end of 4th, loved 5th, didn't like 6th and skipped 7th. 8th is great but I haven't played it enough to give a verdict

4th. Would have been 5th, but that was also the edition where the armouries disappeared and customizability died in favour of pushing special characters. 5th, if I could play it with 4e Codexes.

7th. I started in 7th, so I have no judgement on 1st-6th, and 7th is much better than 8th.

How can people vote 8th when it is not even fully released yet? Also, the poll fails to take into account respondents who may have started with 7th or 8th. The results of this poll is meaningless.

You do realize you're on the internet, correct?

 Tokhuah wrote:
How can people vote 8th when it is not even fully released yet? Also, the poll fails to take into account respondents who may have started with 7th or 8th. The results of this poll is meaningless.

IOW: This poll doesn't has the result I want, so is meaningless.

This poll has the weight you wan't do give it. Is a random poll on the internet. People can perfectly read rulebooks of pasts editions without playing them. As people that only has play 8th can vote, people that has NO played 8th can vote too.

Tie between fifth edition before the addition of flyers, and eighth.

4th for me. Everything in chaos was ultra customizable. Then was subsequently neutered in 5th, so I quit until 8th.

Started playing in 7th.

8th edition is bloody amazing compared to 7th.

4th for me. Best Codexes, tight rules, pre-AP escalation, pre-ward, better combat resolution mechanics than 5th.

4th easily, it was the only one with somewhat abstract LOS, really empathized tactical maneuvering and balanced shooting and assault pretty well, even though transports were garbage.

The game basically became gak when area terrrain became transparent and that is still the case now.

of Editions iv'e played.

8th
5th
6th


7th

7th ed made me quit 40k.

while 4th had a lot less escalation than what followed, and the codex books had lots of flavor, the rules and codex books (the 3.5/4E IG codex is simultaneously lauded as both one of the fluffiest and weakest/least competitive codex books ever) were pretty wildly imbalanced and had some really obvious sore spots. Particularly with vehicles and LoS/CC consolidation and a couple other things. Nonskimmer transports were simply flat out nonfunctional for instance (any single penetrating hit auto-disembarked the unit and forced a pinning test, on top of autostunning the tank for a turn even if it survived, pens killed on a 4+, none of which applied to skimmers that could only ever be glanced and seemingly all had cheap wargear options tailored to mitigating or ignoring the danger of dying on an immobilized result which was supposed to be the downside to SMF). The "oh look the area terrain and CC consolidation rules mean nobody ever gets to shoot me!" issues were pretty abusive too (was on both sides of that, my CSM's loved it, but made IG unplayable). 4E had some major core rules problems sadly.

I started playing towards the end of 7th, I've played more 8th than 7th by now.

7th edition 40k was one of the worst games I've tried, 8th is far better. I didn't vote though, because I can't fairly judge any other edition.