What was your favourite / best edition of 40k?

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.

**Thud**

EVIL INC wrote:
This comes up every week or so. 5th is the favorite of the very vocal players. Doesnt mean it was the favorite of the most, just the most violently vocal.
These threads always end up going off topic with insults going back, well they always end up only going in one direction,

In the end different "types" of players (playstyles as well as personality as the two are usually closely related) preffered different editions for different reasons.
Some preferred different editions for fluff reasons while others preferred it for nostalia reasons. In the end, its a purely personal and subjective question with the same for answers.

Violently vocal?

Really?

**EVIL INC**

Luckily. I refrain from insults myself.
pointing out that these threads always end up in messes of people saying this edition is the best or that editionis the best with no one ever considering that both sides could be right because to them they feel that different ones are their favorite?
Oh yes, I never learn because I always end up reading them anyway. Of course, evidently, neither do you because I see your reading it as well. lol

**vipoid**

EVIL INC wrote:
Luckily. I refrain from insults myself.

Demonstrably untrue.

**Grimtuff**

EVIL INC wrote:
Luckily. I refrain from insults myself.

**Blacksails**

Probably best to just ignore him.

Its not like he's contributing in any meaningful manner.

**EVIL INC**

Yes, indeed true. Although I am sure there are those who live in glass houses who will make claims otherwise.

However, since you obviously disagree. I challenge you.
Pick the edition you prefer whichever one it is and kindly explain why it is the best edition and why all other players have to have it as their favorite and why they are so wrong to have a favorite that is different from yours

I personally feel that everyone should decide what is their favorite based on their personal preferences, likes and dislikes whether it be rules, game play, fluff, personal history in terms of which one they have the fondest memories of games ect and so forth and understand that different people will have different favorite editions. That making fun of them or insulting them for having a different favorite is impolite.

I dont have a single favorite. I prefer aspects of some over others and vice versa and have fonder memories of some over others.

**daddyorchips**

2nd was easier to play than RT.

RT is more charming, weirder, nostalgic but the game can take ages and be disjointed at times.

then i didn't touch it again until 7th.

I enjoyed 7th. 8th is OK but there are some funny ideas going on that make it my least favourite of them all.

so i will say

2nd is my favourite.

**Blacksails**

When you say 7th and 8th, do you mean 6th and 7th? Reason being that we haven't had 8th yet (unless you know something we don't know...), and 7th is the most recent edition.

**Alpharius**

OK.

Some general rules of thumb:

1) Everyone's got an opinion.

2) Not everyone will agree.

And, of course, please follow ALL the rules of Dakka Dakka.

Thanks!

**EVIL INC**

Alpharius wrote:
OK.

Some general rules of thumb:

1) Everyone's got an opinion.

2) Not everyone will agree.

And, of course, please follow ALL the rules of Dakka Dakka.

Thanks!

Exalted. Thank you.

I'm pretty sure that daddyorchips just got the numbering a little confused. No big deal. After 7 editions, it is easy. Sometimes, it all seems to just run together lol.

**insaniak**

EVIL INC wrote:
Exalted. Thank you. .

That was directed at you as well.

**EVIL INC**

insaniak wrote:
EVIL INC wrote:
Exalted. Thank you. .

That was directed at you as well.

Absolutely. I assumed it was directed at everyone in the thread myself included. It should be directed at EVERYONE on the site regardless of who they are as well as a reminder is always useful. I dont hold myself above the law and neither should anyone else.

repeat my feelings on the matter....

I personally feel that everyone should decide what is their favorite based on their personal preferences, likes and dislikes whether it be rules, game play, fluff, personal history in terms of which one they have the fondest memories of games ect and so forth and understand that different people will have different favorite editions. That making fun of them or insulting them for having a different favorite is impolite.

**Blacksails**

*Edit* Breaking my own advice from earlier in the thread.

**insaniak**

None of which has anything to do with the actual topic of discussion.

Please stick to the topic, and leave the telling people how to behave to the moderators.

**EVIL INC**

Personally, I preferred Rogue trader when considering my old Chaos army. Nostalia because that was when I started playing.Also, because the Realm of Chaos books allowed for a MUCH wider variety of personalization and custimization within the army. After all, a D1000 mutation chart and the ability to have each and every single model in your army have different mutations has to be fun.
With my guard, I preferred 6th/7th because it is a shooty army and now it is a viable army to take.
I feel that as this is an opinion based question, each person will give a correct answer.

**Darkzephyr**

I'm curious. I played during early 5th edition (2010) then quit to pursue other hobbies.

What were the big changes from 5th > 6th> 7th. What got worse better, etc?

**Vaktathi**

Darkzephyr wrote:
I'm curious. I played during early 5th edition (2010) then quit to pursue other hobbies.

What were the big changes from 5th > 6th> 7th. What got worse better, etc?

5th to 6th changed some of the missions/deployment, added in allies, some changes to psychic rules by introducing Rulebook lores, massively nerfed vehicles and introduced HP's, and introduced Flyers. Lots of new special rules like Hammer of Wrath, Strikedown, Zealot, added in the concept of "snapshots" and Random charge distances, and a few other things.

7th changed scoring units entirely to be basically anything and everything, integrated Superheavy vehicles and Gargantuan Creatures into the core rules, in terms of army construction basically allows you to take as many FoC's as you want and allow any allies (with varying degrees of compatibility) within a given points value (or to do away with it entirely and just field whatever you want), added a Psychic phase back in, added a new randomized set of objectives and missions called "Maelstrom of War" missions, etc.

**Backfire**

It's always surprising how well 5th edition does in these polls, as when it came, 4th edition veterans put up absolutely HUGE whinestorm. Particularly True LOS, that didn't go over well. Also new wound allocation and cover system, which disabled some popular tactics - for example, Rhino Sniping. This was seen as dumbing down the game tactically.

What 5th edition had going for it was clarity - there was just much less crap as absolutely only legal units were those in the Codeci. There were no longer White Dwarf units, supplementary codices, FW units were permission only...in fact, during the late 4th/early 5th, the pendulum went too far, and the game felt too abstract and sterile. Also when GW hired a new FAQ guy, it made the game much more playable.

For me, choosing between 5th and 6th is toss-up, as 6th edition was improvement in some respects, but also had some stupidity (like way too lenient Ally matrix) and the rulebook had tons of poorly clarified rules. 7th is better than 6th in almost every respect.

**Vaktathi**

Backfire wrote:
It's always surprising how well 5th edition does in these polls, as when it came, 4th edition veterans put up absolutely HUGE whinestorm. Particularly True LOS, that didn't go over well. Also new wound allocation and cover system, which disabled some popular tactics - for example, Rhino Sniping. This was seen as dumbing down the game tactically.

What 5th edition had going for it was clarity - there was just much less crap as absolutely only legal units were those in the Codeci. There were no longer White Dwarf units, supplementary codices, FW units were permission only...

To be fair, nothing actually has changed with regards to FW in terms of actual rules between 5E and 6E/7E, 6E just pulled the stick out of people's butts when the last reamining legs of any sort of "balance" arguments were kicked out with the introduction of allies (and its awful matrix). Many events already started allowing FW stuff in 5th, there were no actual rules changes regarding FW's usage with 6th, people just couldn't find any remaining reasons to try and ban it beyond "it's expensive" with the allies rules kicking about.

There were still some White Dwarf inclusion, Sisters of Battle got a WD book in 5th and Blood Angels still used a White Dwarf list for the first couple years of 5E.

But yes overall it was much more manageable than 7E.

**Accolade**

Well, I've played 5th the most, I enjoyed it a lot back when it was going. I remember 40k being really huge at a lot of the places I'd attend during 5th...that's not to say it's not still popular, but during 5th it was something everyone played.

I bought the collector's edition of 6th because I was so excited about it but it quickly became nuisance-some with a lot of the rules shenanigans going on (watching units tank a bucket-load of wounds off a leader was quite absurd). I never really enjoyed it as much, especially with the inclusion of fliers (which I still feel don't have a place in a skirmish-size battle) and things like Escalation being marked as a core rule set and not an expansion made the edition feel worse and worse. That was really the general feeling of 6th- that it started off positive and quickly started sinking like the Titanic.

7th seems like it has cleaned up some of the things from 6th, although looking at it from the outside I'm not much of a fan of the army construction (or lack there-of) rules. That, and of course it doubled-down on some of the things I don't like, such as super-heavies (mainly in the form of Knights...EVERYWHRE) and fliers.

3rd I had a taste of a long time ago and it's something I'd like to learn how to play entirely. The armies were certainly smaller, while it seems that the feeling of the "game" was pretty similar to 40k as it stands now, with units costing less and less in points with each update.

But yeah, I'm going to stick with 5th. Not perfect, but it was at the very minimum the most successful.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Backfire wrote:
What 5th edition had going for it was clarity - there was just much less crap as absolutely only legal units were those in the Codeci. There were no longer White Dwarf units, supplementary codices, FW units were permission only...in fact, during the late 4th/early 5th, the pendulum went too far, and the game felt too abstract and sterile. Also when GW hired a new FAQ guy, it made the game much more playable.

Man, that would do wonders for the game these days! I wonder why they don't bring him back?

**insaniak**

Backfire wrote:
It's always surprising how well 5th edition does in these polls, as when it came, 4th edition veterans put up absolutely HUGE whinestorm. Particularly True LOS, that didn't go over well. Also new wound allocation and cover system, which disabled some popular tactics - for example, Rhino Sniping. This was seen as dumbing down the game tactically.

True LOS in 5th was mostly just unpopular with those who were playing it wrong in 4th, and thought it was something new. 4th edition was a mess, and 5th (for all its faults) did a reasonable job of cleaning up a lot of that mess.

**Zathras**

7th edition is my favorite. It made me realize I made the correct decision in quitting 40k at the beginning of 6th edition and stop spending my hobby money on GW's overpriced merchandise.

**koooaei**

5-th was faster, easier and with lots and lots of boxes all around. The killpoint system was quite unballanced.
7-th is taking more time, has more random stuff but it's more tactical with positioning being very important due to per-model cover and deaths of the clsoest. Maelstorm is awesome. The games are much better than in 6-th due to it.

Now if there was 5-th with maelstorm and no killpoints and more reasonable vehicles...but as it is, i like 7-th more. It's more time consuming but is it really bad for a hobby?

**TheCustomLime**

5e. It was much less of a chaotic mess then 7e. And less randomness. Gods above, I hate all the tables you have to roll on these days.

**AllSeeingSkink**

EVIL INC wrote:
5th is the favorite of the very vocal players. Doesnt mean it was the favorite of the most.

Actually, the poll of 702 votes had 37% preferring 5th to only 22% favouring 4th and a mere 18% preferring 7th. This is despite the fact the poll is only of existing dakka members... there's no way to take in to account all the people who quit the game between 7th and 5th.

So yes, it was the favourite of most, not just a vocal minority.

**Backfire**

As I pointed out in other thread, 5th edition was actually more random than the 6th/7th. The randomness may have been less obvious to some, but it affected the game more.

6th/7th have too many random tables, which are annoying, but seldom affect the game much.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Accolade wrote:
Well, I've played 5th the most, I enjoyed it a lot back when it was going. I remember 40k being really huge at a lot of the places I'd attend during 5th...that's not to say it's not still popular, but during 5th it was something everyone played.

I say that big factor for 5th edition popularity was AOBR. It was first really good starter set with great minis and cheap price.
Also, it seemed to me at the time that lots of Fantasy players were moving into 40k. 7th edition was killing WHFB and when 5th edition 40k came out with more objective based missions, making the game more tactical, lots of people jumped ship.

**MWHistorian**

It had problems, but 5th was my favorite.

**vipoid**

Backfire wrote:
As I pointed out in other thread, 5th edition was actually more random than the 6th/7th. The randomness may have been less obvious to some, but it affected the game more.

I disagree - 5th was markedly less random than 6th or 7th - both in terms of general randomness *and* in terms of how much that randomness influenced the game.

Or, are we talking about the problem of 7th being Rock, Paper Scissors? Where you can easily have matches won or lost before a game has even begun. In which case, you could make an argument for that being less random, though it would hardly be a point in the game's favour.

**jasper76**

I like 7th best, however I liked the Psychic rules from 6th better. I now feel like I'm pausing for a game of Yahtzee in 7th.

**vipoid**

jasper76 wrote:
however I liked the Psychic rules from 6th better. I now feel like I'm pausing for a game of Yahtzee in 7th.

I can certainly relate to this.