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.

Hate 7th made my army useless against the 4 opponents I play the most, with no real options to get better . I liked 6th up untile escalation and D template frenzy, where suddenly every 2.5L bottle was a reaver titan. I played at the very end of 5th, but liked it a lot , even with its crazy armies.

What army do you play, Makumba?

 vipoid wrote:

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.

I disagree with your disagreement. 6/7th edition randomness is annoying, but often pointless randomness like Psychic powers or Warlord traits, which seldom have major effect on the game. By contrast, 5th edition randomness was stuff like Night fighting or Vehicle damage table, which had huge effect. If you were a shooty army and rolled poor first turn in Night fighting or didn't get any Immobilized/destroyed results on enemy transports, that was game over right there. Or say you counted on your reserves coming in and they came only in Turn5 when everything else you had was wiped out already...

Backfire wrote:
I disagree with your disagreement. 6/7th edition randomness is annoying, but often pointless randomness like Psychic powers or Warlord traits, which seldom have major effect on the game.

Um, psychic powers can and do have a major effect on the game.

Backfire wrote:
By contrast, 5th edition randomness was stuff like Night fighting or Vehicle damage table, which had huge effect. If you were a shooty army and rolled poor first turn in Night fighting or didn't get any Immobilized/destroyed results on enemy transports, that was game over right there.

Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. Shooting armies could still do just fine even if their first turn was lacking because of night fighting.

With regard to vehicles... the damage table is still there. And, there's even less chance of getting an immobilised or destroyed result now.

Backfire wrote:
Or say you counted on your reserves coming in and they came only in Turn5 when everything else you had was wiped out already...

Again, how is that different from what we have today? Reserves are still random. People can still end up with their reserves sitting out most of the game.

 vipoid wrote:

Backfire wrote:
I disagree with your disagreement. 6/7th edition randomness is annoying, but often pointless randomness like Psychic powers or Warlord traits, which seldom have major effect on the game.

Um, psychic powers can and do have a major effect on the game.

Bigger than a reserve roll? Worst thing with Psychic power table which can happen is that you get a power which is less good than some others.

 vipoid wrote:

Backfire wrote:
By contrast, 5th edition randomness was stuff like Night fighting or Vehicle damage table, which had huge effect. If you were a shooty army and rolled poor first turn in Night fighting or didn't get any Immobilized/destroyed results on enemy transports, that was game over right there.

Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. Shooting armies could still do just fine even if their first turn was lacking because of night fighting.

In 5th edition Night Fighting only came in Dawn of War deployment where other army began at half table. It basically meant not only your deployment was screwed, but your shooting in first turn could potentially amount to zilch, meaning enemy mechanized units would roll over you right away. Maybe my view is skewed because I played Tau, but I found that in DoW scenarios, if I failed couple of rolls in the first turn, it was generally game over right then & there.

 vipoid wrote:

With regard to vehicles... the damage table is still there. And, there's even less chance of getting an immobilised or destroyed result now.

But you have Hull points which are very reliable way to kill a vehicle. In 5th edition, you could end up doing no meaningful damage at all, and often did: what does it help if you Stun a GK vehicle, or blow a Big Shoota off a Battlewagon? Nothing. Now, even "poor" hits generally progress the destruction of the vehicle.

 vipoid wrote:

Backfire wrote:
Or say you counted on your reserves coming in and they came only in Turn5 when everything else you had was wiped out already...

Again, how is that different from what we have today? Reserves are still random. People can still end up with their reserves sitting out most of the game.

Reserve rolls are much easier now, and reserves come in automatically in Turn 4. In 5th it was Turn 5. Putting units in reserve was a huge risk in 5th if your army was not designed as Full Reserve army (Drop pods etc).

Backfire wrote:


In 5th edition Night Fighting only came in Dawn of War deployment where other army began at half table. It basically meant not only your deployment was screwed, but your shooting in first turn could potentially amount to zilch, meaning enemy mechanized units would roll over you right away. Maybe my view is skewed because I played Tau, but I found that in DoW scenarios, if I failed couple of rolls in the first turn, it was generally game over right then & there.

Blacksun filters were widely available for Tau which greatly mitigated that probably better than anything else in the game.

But you have Hull points which are very reliable way to kill a vehicle. In 5th edition, you could end up doing no meaningful damage at all, and often did: what does it help if you Stun a GK vehicle, or blow a Big Shoota off a Battlewagon? Nothing. Now, even "poor" hits generally progress the destruction of the vehicle.

In 5th anything that could penetrate a vehicle killed it on the same odds as AP1 pen's do now, and even though glances couldn't outright kill a vehicle they would disable or degrade it very effectively.

Currently vehicles are absurdly easy to kill, especially in CC, having what are effectively "wounds" but no armor saves, and still having a damage table, is why, barring things with lots of mitigation (3+ jinking skimmers, flyers, superheavies) you don't see vehicle heavy armies doing particularly well.

Backfire wrote:

Bigger than a reserve roll? Worst thing with Psychic power table which can happen is that you get a power which is less good than some others.

It's a problem when the powers are "balanced" by being random. Invisibility is more broken than just about anything in 5th, but don't worry - you might not roll it.

Also, I don't understand the comparison to reserves - they're still random, after all.

One other thing, 5th didn't have random victory points or random missions. Those are most certainly not minor.

In 5th edition Night Fighting only came in Dawn of War deployment where other army began at half table. It basically meant not only your deployment was screwed, but your shooting in first turn could potentially amount to zilch, meaning enemy mechanized units would roll over you right away. Maybe my view is skewed because I played Tau, but I found that in DoW scenarios, if I failed couple of rolls in the first turn, it was generally game over right then & there.

Could you elaborate on these "mechanised units" that "roll over you". 'Mechanised unit' is very vague, and I'm having trouble understanding what you're referring to. Were you rolled by tanks, by open-topped transports, by shooty units in transports, by assault units in transports, or some combination?

But you have Hull points which are very reliable way to kill a vehicle. In 5th edition, you could end up doing no meaningful damage at all, and often did: what does it help if you Stun a GK vehicle, or blow a Big Shoota off a Battlewagon? Nothing. Now, even "poor" hits generally progress the destruction of the vehicle.

That's somewhat true. On the other hand, hull points are meaningless until they're all gone. So, knocking a hull point off a rhino or battlewagon is no more helpful than the scenarios you mentioned. Granted, it does mean that vehicles can't survive indefinitely, but it also means that they'll frequently be working at full-capacity until they finally drop. In addition, penetrating hits have, if anything, gotten more random. In 5th, if you penetrated a vehicle, you would almost certainly do some serious damage to it and stood a good chance of destroying it outright. Nowadays, even a penetrating hit from an AP2 weapon has a pathetic 1/6 chance of destroying a vehicle - most of the time it'll just make the crew spill their drinks. This makes destroying vehicles outright very random.

Saying that, I do think that Hull Points are a step forward - I just don't think they're well-executed. It seems like a poor attempt to mesh wounds with vehicle-damage. Personally, I think they (along with the vehicle damage table) make glancing hits too good and penetrating hits too weak.

Also, we now have an entire class of vehicle based around throwing the dice and hoping to roll some 6s.

Reserve rolls are much easier now, and reserves come in automatically in Turn 4. In 5th it was Turn 5. Putting units in reserve was a huge risk in 5th if your army was not designed as Full Reserve army (Drop pods etc).

I certainly wouldn't say much easier. The only difference is that they come on on a 3+ on the first roll, rather than a 4+. Coming in automatically on turn 4 is nice, but it doesn't make the preceding turns any less random, and can still leave units stuck in reserve for a good chunk of the game.

Don't forget the entirety of Maelstrom, mysterious objectives and terrain, random wound allocation, random weapon destroyed on vehicles, and random tables scattered throughout the codices and rulebook of often smaller importance (why is Perils a random table? Honestly).

If the most random stuff about 5th were vehicles, reserves, and night fighting on a single mission, I'm happy to keep thinking 7th is far more random as a whole, and takes more control out of the player and places it in random rolls far more than 5th.

The biggest perversity of the current vehicle system is that by and large it heavily emphasizes mutli-shot general purpose medium weapons over dedicated heavy anti-tank guns.

Why bother with trying to put a Railgun into a vehicle when the chance to kill it outright is relatively small and in all likelyhood you'll only strip a single HP (and if it's got Jink then chances are you won't even get that), as opposed to a bunch of S7 missiles that have a greater chance of making it through Jink or Smoke saves (thanks to more shots) and can take off more than 1 HP with a single salvo, even if they don't have a chance to blow it up?

On top of that, 7E's also got a huge skimmer vs non-skimmer divide much like 3E and 4E did.

 Vaktathi wrote:


On top of that, 7E's also got a huge skimmer vs non-skimmer divide much like 3E and 4E did.

Not to mention the Vehicle vs. MC divide.

*shudder* yeah.

It gets worse when you get into flyers, at least most flying vehicles are AV10 or AV11, with only 2 or 3 Hull points, an only a few are AV12. Meanwhile we've got lots of MC's sporting 3+ armor saves (and often invul saves) and 4+ wounds, and can even Jink when not flying.

I don't sound bitter do I?

Not at all.

Tell me again where the Flyrant touched you?

 Vaktathi wrote:
The biggest perversity of the current vehicle system is that by and large it heavily emphasizes mutli-shot general purpose medium weapons over dedicated heavy anti-tank guns.

Why bother with trying to put a Railgun into a vehicle when the chance to kill it outright is relatively small and in all likelyhood you'll only strip a single HP (and if it's got Jink then chances are you won't even get that), as opposed to a bunch of S7 missiles that have a greater chance of making it through Jink or Smoke saves (thanks to more shots) and can take off more than 1 HP with a single salvo, even if they don't have a chance to blow it up?

7th is weird in that vehicles feel both too resilient and yet somehow not resilient enough. I like the *idea* of hull points, but most vehicles seem to have barely any. They take few hits that apparently aren't enough to even shake the vehicle, and then suddenly fall apart because... reasons. On the other hand, penetrating hits rarely seem to do anything meaningful. I think a more damaging penetration table with increased hull points would be better (could also have some/all penetrating hits inflict multiple hull points).

 Vaktathi wrote:
On top of that, 7E's also got a huge skimmer vs non-skimmer divide much like 3E and 4E did.

It's because GW really sucks at giving units weaknesses. Much like the walker-MCs, skimmers have to be DA BEST AT EVERYFINK!!! Better speed than tracked vehicles, better armament than tracked vehicles, equal or better capacity than tracked vehicles, much more resilient than tracked vehicles. The only skimmers that seem reasonably balanced are DE ones - since their firepower isn't particularly impressive, and they're actually very fragile.

 vipoid wrote:
What army do you play, Makumba?

Guard.


Random wouldn't be as bad, if it wasn't there to draw out the game in to infinity. 5th was ok as far as time goes, 6th was already slowing down. now pre game rolls can take up as much as 10+ min , without actualy checking what opponent rolls do.

 Blacksails wrote:
Not at all.

Tell me again where the Flyrant touched you?

Right in the Valkyrie, he didn't even give me the candy he promised :(

 vipoid wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The biggest perversity of the current vehicle system is that by and large it heavily emphasizes mutli-shot general purpose medium weapons over dedicated heavy anti-tank guns.

Why bother with trying to put a Railgun into a vehicle when the chance to kill it outright is relatively small and in all likelyhood you'll only strip a single HP (and if it's got Jink then chances are you won't even get that), as opposed to a bunch of S7 missiles that have a greater chance of making it through Jink or Smoke saves (thanks to more shots) and can take off more than 1 HP with a single salvo, even if they don't have a chance to blow it up?

7th is weird in that vehicles feel both too resilient and yet somehow not resilient enough. I like the *idea* of hull points, but most vehicles seem to have barely any. They take few hits that apparently aren't enough to even shake the vehicle, and then suddenly fall apart because... reasons. On the other hand, penetrating hits rarely seem to do anything meaningful. I think a more damaging penetration table with increased hull points would be better (could also have some/all penetrating hits inflict multiple hull points).

Personally I'd rather see just one or the other, there's no reason to have two overlapping kill mechanics. A big problem with 5E was that glances basically didn't bother transports 5/6ths of the time and pen's only bothered them 50% of the time. Gun-tanks were very much affected by 100% of results on either type of hit. Nobody particularly complained about battle tanks in 5E, you won't find threads complaining about how hard it is to deal with Land Raiders or Hammerheads or the like, rather, it was the 35pt Rhino. If they moved back to a 5E style damage table with the 7E mechanics to passengers (e.g. passengers have to pass an Ld test if a vehicle is stunned or they're less effective) it probably wouldn't be too bad, especially as you can't assault out of Rhino's anymore no matter what. If they fixed Jink to have an effect on Open Topped transports and guys shooting out/assaulting that would probably tie up most loose ends. Either that or just move them all entirely over to the T/Sv system and be done with it.

It's because GW really sucks at giving units weaknesses. Much like the walker-MCs, skimmers have to be DA BEST AT EVERYFINK!!! Better speed than tracked vehicles, better armament than tracked vehicles, equal or better capacity than tracked vehicles, much more resilient than tracked vehicles. The only skimmers that seem reasonably balanced are DE ones - since their firepower isn't particularly impressive, and they're actually very fragile.

Indeed, that's very true, though even DE transports can still constantly jink for a 4+ (or 3+ if upgraded) with no effect whatsoever on people shooting or assaulting out of it

Has an Iron Warriors player: 3 ed (yop good old CSM 3.5)

2nd and 3rd editions.

 Blacksails wrote:
Don't forget the entirety of Maelstrom, mysterious objectives and terrain, random wound allocation, random weapon destroyed on vehicles, and random tables scattered throughout the codices and rulebook of often smaller importance (why is Perils a random table? Honestly).

If the most random stuff about 5th were vehicles, reserves, and night fighting on a single mission, I'm happy to keep thinking 7th is far more random as a whole, and takes more control out of the player and places it in random rolls far more than 5th.

I like fun random tables. I dislike random wound allocation. Not cause it might kill someone important - that's actually a good thing - but cause it's pretty time consuming to allocate 2 random wounds to 30 guyz.

I had the most enjoyment when playing 6th, but only because of the armies I used during it (previous version Elder, and current Necrons). I preferred 5th edition over what little I remember of 4th, and definitely over 6th, and I don't doubt that I'd have enjoyed playing both the aforementioned armies in 5th just as much as, if not more than, playing them in 6th.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 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.

Was every 40k player in the world polled and required to answer? Further was the answers of each pollee confidential? Was the poll slanted with leading answers? Just asking because unless these can be verified, it leads us to believe that said poll was not entirely accurate.
My point was not everyone takes part in a poll. Especially if they feel that they will be hounded and harrassed for it. As pointed out earlier also, different types of players "suffer" differently. A "shooty style" player is more likely to shrug and deal with it ignoring polls while an assault players will be more likely to take part in every poll possible to be heard. The location of the poll and the community it is posted in will also make a difference. Questions asked can also make a difference as well as possible answers given (or not given) to choose from......

Not a fan of the random roll for psychic powers (in any edition). I'd much rather be able to choose them and them be appropriately costed. i'd like to think that my psychers researched and meditated on what they thought they would need for an upcoming battle instead of just randomly tearing pages out of their lorebook to skim through on the way to the battlefield.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Was every 40k player in the world polled and required to answer?

Do you have a wider poll we can use? If anything, I'd say the poll is skewed in favour of 6th and 7th as I'm sure many people who preferred 2nd through 5th no longer frequent the forums and so their votes would go uncounted.

Further was the answers of each pollee confidential?

Yes.

Was the poll slanted with leading answers?

No.

I'm sure the poll wasn't perfect... but over 700 voters is a pretty good turn out if you ask me. It certainly demonstrates the opposite of what you were saying, which is that, yes, a majority did seem to like 4th and 5th to 6th and 7th.

Of course it's personal preference, that's so obvious that it hardly bears mentioning. But all evidence points to 4th and 5th being the more popular editions.

Out of the 700 who took part, 4th/5th was more popular.

Different playstyles have been rewarded in different editions. 5th rewarded the assault rush playstyle while 6th/7th rewarded the sit and shoot playstyle. other variations throughout the others going all the way back to RT where the "cinimatic" game ruled with the game master controlling and arbitrating the game and it being more of a warband/taskforce style skirmish setting.

My point is that different playstyles usually attract different "types" of people. Different types of people have different ways of coping with adversity. The sit and shoot variety will usually not take part in polls o "complain" on the internet while the assault players are more likely to take part in polls and "complain on the internet.

I have played every edition to date and i have enjoyed playing in all of them. To pick an overall favorite for me would be impossible.
In rogue trader, it ws just myself and a 2 close friends playing one another on the kitchen table or on the floor with stacked books or cassete tape cases and other litter for terrain. We named our characters and had hours of enjoyment. We still laugh at the time my dark elf crossbows killed off a squad of chaos marines after surviving a missile launcher blast unscathed. Another story we enjoy to banter about is when my champion Sven the Slayer fought my buddies minataur champion Grrran (I forget how many "r" and "a" were in there) and was losing until Sven managed to cause a wound and suck the minataur into the daemon blade and win. My buddy always said that his character would get mine upon release and I would return with "thats why Sven is never gonna release him".
2nd edition, I played with the same buddies and a 4th one who had joined our group. Myself and the newcomer would go to a local shop to play with others who were newer to the game and play. It was a young but enthousiastic group and later, a few other older playes joined and we had a lot of fun overall.
3rd edition I had started to play in a wider area yet and met a lot of new players including a bunch of college students who played and was introduced to a more competetive environment.
4th edition I didnt get to play much but id ok and won a few prizes at a shop that ran tournaments.
5th-7th, I played at a local shop and did very well competatively and my painting skills blossomed to where i started winning painting competitions even to the point where a few times i won out in that catagory over a golden daemon catagory winner.
In each edition, the edition was "only rules" to learn. The important part was playing the game and enjoying the company of friends or playing a game with like minded people in a friendly environment. Banter and enjoyment were the order of the day. My timeline may be a bit blurred in relation to editions but if it is, it is because that was secondary to the groups I played with and the fun we had over the decades.
I preferred RT for chaos due to the variety and randomness because to me, thats what chaos was. My guard preferred 6th-7th because that was when they became more powerfull. Not that they did not perform well in 5th for me as they did very well for me then too.
The rules sucked in all editions. Not a single one was perfect. I think that way too many people get hung up on the rules and which edition is "better" and forget about actually playing the game. My personal opinion is that when you argue and make fun of someone because they prefer a diifferent edition than you and try to change their mind, you are forgetting what gaming is all about. The enjoyment of spending time with friends to get away from the "real world".

 EVIL INC wrote:

My point is that different playstyles usually attract different "types" of people. Different types of people have different ways of coping with adversity. The sit and shoot variety will usually not take part in polls o "complain" on the internet while the assault players are more likely to take part in polls and "complain on the internet.

Well, there are several reason why this statement is wrong, fallacious, or generally inaccurate.

Its a gross generalization with nothing to back it up, and has no real relevance to the poll in question. Unless you can find evidence to say that only or a majority who complain play only a specific type of gameplay, while ensuring all other reasons for complaining is isolated and accounted for.

Good luck.

My personal opinion is that when you argue and make fun of someone because they prefer a diifferent edition than you and try to change their mind, you are forgetting what gaming is all about. The enjoyment of spending time with friends to get away from the "real world".

Why do you this in all your posts?

No one is forgetting what gaming is about.

No one is making of fun of anyone.

No is trying to change their mind. Its called discussing. No one is trying to convert you.

No one has lost sight of how to have fun with friends.

*Edit* For someone who constantly adds things like you said above, where people shouldn't be made fun of or insulted for preferring something different, you sure do like to make fun of and generally insult other people for disliking something you enjoy.

Edited by RiTides - Let's not bring in inflammatory comments from other threads here, please.

Do a little research on personality types and wargaming. Research has fully supported my theory to date, feel free to do a little research on your own. You'll find some interesting reading. I came across much of it in my researches in sociology. A few internet searches will get you started.This could actually go a long way in explaining why different personality types prefer different gaming styles. Keep in mind that the search results will encompass a large number of games including actual real world military ones used by military personnel. try different variations or the wording. I wont list links because that would be considered spam and since i've kept from spamming so far, dont want to start now.

if you do not like that i do not have a "favorite" edition, that is fine. Allow me to not have a favorite edition in peace. I dont try to change your mind about which you prefer. To me, they are just rules What is far more important is the enjoyment of gaming and the camaraderie of friends. As a matter of fact, 3 other buddies and i played DUST Tactics last weekend and had as much fun as we did playing 40k. the game and rules were socondary to the enjoyment of time spent together escaping the real world.

But to make you smile, I very much enjoyed 5th edition as well as the others. I still remember having loads of deep striking guardsmen with plasma guns dropping and blasting away at my power armored opponents (usually getting hot and killing themselves off lol). i remember winning my first game in one tournament with the first shot of the game as the other guy was not able to recover from the loss of his "power unit". He clustered his space pups up tightly together and my battle cannon shot landed on target killing I think 14 out of 15 of them. So I guess you could say that in regards to variation allowed and different "one trick pony" exploits, my guard did enjoy 5th as much as they do 6th and 7th.

I think for a detailed and characterful skirmish game, 2nd edition.(Although over complicated at least it delivered plenty of characters and detail.)

Out of all the battle games,(3rd -7th.) 5th edition came closest to a reasonable game.(But still had massive over complication and poor clarity.)

 EVIL INC wrote:


My point is that different playstyles usually attract different "types" of people. Different types of people have different ways of coping with adversity. The sit and shoot variety will usually not take part in polls o "complain" on the internet while the assault players are more likely to take part in polls and "complain on the internet.

I like 5th.
I like shooty armies.
Your theory is false with nothing to back it up.

No one is trying to convert you to 5th. The question was asked, "which edition do you like best" and we responded. Just because I like 5th doesn't mean I lost the spirit of the game.

I've had to edit a few posts. Please remember that accusations of trolling usually are, in fact, trolling themselves! And refrain from using such an inflammatory term in this thread.

My favorite edition of 40k? Hmm... I have some fond memories of 3rd, but there were a number of broken things that ended up making it less so, like always seems to be the case! If I had to pick one, I think I would say 5th edition.

EVIL INC wrote:Different playstyles have been rewarded in different editions. 5th rewarded the assault rush playstyle while 6th/7th rewarded the sit and shoot playstyle. other variations throughout the others going all the way back to RT where the "cinimatic" game ruled with the game master controlling and arbitrating the game and it being more of a warband/taskforce style skirmish setting.

My point is that different playstyles usually attract different "types" of people.

Of course, I never disagreed with this... in fact I thought it was so obvious it didn't bear mentioning

Different types of people have different ways of coping with adversity. The sit and shoot variety will usually not take part in polls o "complain" on the internet while the assault players are more likely to take part in polls and "complain on the internet.

This is the statement you need to back up with something. Personally my ranking of the editions has little to do with whether I prefer shooting or assault. My favourite editions are the ones that are most balanced and/or most characterful and/or need the least modification to become a solid game.

My personal opinion is that when you argue and make fun of someone because they prefer a diifferent edition than you and try to change their mind, you are forgetting what gaming is all about. The enjoyment of spending time with friends to get away from the "real world".

I'm not really sure how what we are doing (discussing our favourite editions and why) is any different to what you are doing (discussing that you don't have a favourite edition). I'm not here to change anyone's mind, I'm just here to discuss things (and point out BS statements ).

EVIL INC wrote:Do a little research on personality types and wargaming. Research has fully supported my theory to date, feel free to do a little research on your own.

This is not how research works. Trust me, I have done research professionally... you don't say "I've done research and found this, you do research of your own!". It goes "I've done research, this is what the research says, these are links to other peoples' research for reference and this is how my results fit in to that body of work for me to come to my conclusion".

In short: Provide links or your statements just come across as disingenuous.

I wont list links because that would be considered spam and since i've kept from spamming so far, dont want to start now.

No, it would not be considered spam. Don't use that as an excuse, just provide the links, if it's considered spam (which it won't be) the mods will decide and remove it. You've posted over 1200 words of text on this page of this thread alone, the "I don't want to spam" excuse is not meaningful at this point.

if you do not like that i do not have a "favorite" edition, that is fine. Allow me to not have a favorite edition in peace. I dont try to change your mind about which you prefer.

No one is trying to change your mind. YOU are the one who disregarded people who like 5th more as simply being violently vocal, so don't try and act the victim.

There's nothing wrong with liking all editions equally, I don't, but I think it's fine that you do. That's not what pisses people off, what pisses people off is when you call them violently vocal and disregard their complaints as being simply because they like assault more.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Research has fully supported my theory to date

Ok, I'll just look at the data you've completely failed to provide, and then follow the links you didn't bother posting, and then finish off by examining the charts you didn't feel were important enough to share.

While taking my sociology classes in college, I found that using gaming was an easy way to do research papers. Also an easy way to do other papers and presentations. Regardless, finding the information is fairly easy. As a matter of fact, I did a research paper on this very issue (in regards to online gaming but as we all know online games also have the "assault" and the "turret farmer" style players) and not only got a perfect score on my paper but was also asked to come to the proff's office after class where she asked me for permission to use my paper in her own research on the same subject.
The information is so easy to get that it would be an insult to you to provide it because that would be implying that you were unable to do so for yourself and that insult would be breaking the rules of the site. Likewise, if I were to be so impolite as to break the rules in that way, it would be breaking another of the site rules because posting hundreds upon hundreds of websites would be considered spam.

If you choose to disregard the theory out of a lack of looking for yourself, feel free to do so, but I am not wasting my time doing re-researching it when you are intelligent and competent to do it for yourself. Like I said, it would be an insult to you to assume you cant and do it for you.

Personally, I dont care what edition you prefer. I too enjoyed 5th edition. The only part i did not like about it was assault units consolidating into other units after winning a combat without the 2nd unit getting a chance to fire at it in it's own turn or even snap fire. My only issue is players (obviously not any players who are members here, I have to add that caveot in to prevent anyone assuming I am speaking of them) trying to force their views on others to make them like the same edition against their personal preferences. What is someones favorite is entirely subjective. I can totally understand why someone would prefer 5th edition. the rules were much updated from earlier editions and worked well. i enjoyed many games using it with both the rules and the people I played with. I personally fieel it is insulting and impolite to demean others for preferring a n edition other than 5th. I may be alone in that feeling and i am ok with that.

Edit: The rest of the post is relevent and on topic but I thought I would add in an aside that also relates...
What edition was it that had the hit charts that you rolled on when shooting at a vehicle? The one that reminded me of the old epic charts used for shooting at titans. I found these charts...interesting. I dont think they were what the game needed and was glad when they were removed but they were interesting and I just cant remember where they fit in in the edition timeline.