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.

Out of the editions I've played (3rd, 5th, 6th and 7th) I actually like 7th the best. If 8th (when it eventually drops) fixes the few things I think need fixing with 7th then that's even better.

 Ailaros wrote:

Paradigm wrote:In terms of books, 6th by far. Full colour hardbacks, packed with artwork, and while I only have the BRB and C:SM in physical form, all of the books from that period are great fun to look through.

Ugh. 6th ed books are pretty, I'll give them that, but as a functional rulebook, they're awful.

Go back and read any 4th/5th ed codex. Yes, they're not all color and the binding has probably all fallen apart, and the older stuff didn't have anywhere near as much fluff, but everything else was SO much better. There was less fluff, but it was a lot tighter, rather than the droning rambling we have now. The rules were also MUCH better formatted. You looked at the unit you wanted, and there was almost everything you needed to know about it, right there in quick-reference format.

In 6th edition, you look at the units you want, and then it tells you what upgrades it can take. Then you have to go somewhere else in the book to find out how much those upgrades cost, and then you have to go somewhere else to find out what those upgrades do, and then if it has an army-specific general rule, you then have to go to yet a fourth place in the book to figure out the actual rules. It's a nightmare. Throw in allies, dataslates, and the gradual disintegration of the codex system, and finding out what your units do is more difficult than at any other time. Yes, I'm even counting the time where you needed playing cards.

Fair enough. My thinking is that if I'm paying GW prices for a book, the first thing I want is a quality produced item. Between apps like Battlescribe and just memory, the rules in a book I rarely read more than once or twice, whereas fluff and artwork I end up going back to again and again. Same with the one BRB I have, the rules section hardly gets used (have a mini-one for that) and the fluff and gallery sections are read far more often.

If these were cheap purely gaming aids I'd agree the older layout was better, but in all honesty rules are the least of my concern when looking at these books.

Wow, tons of replies, i agree 2nd was fun and the early one 2 to 3 were really fun as far as fluff but 5th was good as it wasn't to complex on the gaming side but still fun. another good thing about 5th is the do it yourself aspect with the bunker plans and blast markers. i wish the hobby book in 7th had more diy and scratch building ideas but i guess games workshop doesn't really want to encourage us not to buy their products. thanks guys

I started in 2nd edition, when games were incredibly time consuming due to almost everything being done on an individual basis rather than throwing a handful of dice.

3rd edition is where the game lore and art began to darken and efficiency was worked in. Game times were majorly reduced.

4th edition was my favorite. 3rd edition started drifting toward unnessecary micromanaging again and 4th tacked it back down. wound allocation was the most intuitive, rules for cover saved a lot of time and allowed a lot of creative liberty when sculpting your models. Efficiency was at its peak. Game play was quick and enjoyable.

5th edition with the advent of TLoS shattered a lot of the imaginative aspect of the game. "Is that unit of prone snipers peeking over that low wall to fire, and be fired at? Nope, according to the 5th ed rules, they are literally sliding around the battlefield on their bellies, permanently as you see them." Model location is no longer represented by their base, assumed to be using available cover. Now the permanent pose of the model is always what that model is doing... Stupid, counter intuitive, unimaginative and lame.

6th was some minor changes to 5th. Plus flyers.

7th is some minor changes to 6th.

My primary issues with 4th were that terrain was all too often used to block LoS completely (oh man 2" of woods? can't see me!), consolidation into new combats meant some assault units *never* got shot at (particularly with the above), and non-Skimmer vehicles were absolute garbage (and non-skimmer Transports were more dangerous than beneficial) while Skimmers were astoundingly good, and blast weapons were awkward.

5E with 4E's wound allocation and VP rules, 6E/7E's Rapid Fire weapon mechanic, and some modified 6E snapshot rules, I think would make the best all-round ruleset personally.

 Azreal13 wrote:
2nd for the nostalgia, probably the best era in my nerd lifetime.

5th was when I started again after 3rd, and probably needed the least work to be a really good game. But they gave us 6th instead!

Actually, I say that for the lols, I don't actually hate the 6th/7th cycle of core rules (especially 7th) I believe most issues derive from codexes and not from the BRB. I think a cull of random tables and a flattening of the power curves of things which are currently decided by chance would probably give us a really decent core, then some work on the army books to sort them out, and we'd be golden (or Simpsons yellow at least)

But I've got to give it to 2nd for the happy memories.

Same here. I was just out of high school when I started during 2nd Edition. So, yeah, it has that "age of innocence" nostalgia to it, before I had to become a serious grown up with a serious grown up job and serious grown up hobbies.

Well, I think I've managed the serious grown up job part, at least, but probably not the other two yet.

I was gonna say 4th... but then i remembered all those Skimmer Moving Fast Falcons with Harlequins in it or Fire Dragons... so i have to go with 7th, and waiting for Kelly's eldar to be toned down.

I really don't enjoy 5th that much looking back in hindsight. I remembered fuming about the loss of Area Terrain and what we gonna do with all the forests at our place. And then it all went down hill after Space Wolves which is pretty early in the edition.

 Archonate wrote:
5th edition with the advent of TLoS shattered a lot of the imaginative aspect of the game. "Is that unit of prone snipers peeking over that low wall to fire, and be fired at? Nope, according to the 5th ed rules, they are literally sliding around the battlefield on their bellies, permanently as you see them." Model location is no longer represented by their base, assumed to be using available cover. Now the permanent pose of the model is always what that model is doing... Stupid, counter intuitive, unimaginative and lame..

You're misremembering here. 5th edition did not introduce TLOS... TLOS has formed the core of the LOS rules since Rogue Trader. Your prone snipers had that exact same problem in every prior edition as well, aside from during 4th edition if that low wall was part of a piece of area terrain.

I started in late third edition and Fourth was a big improvement. Sixth was a big step forward with aircraft and overwatch. 7th is showing
a large step in sophistication of the game which is a good thing I think, but I had to type out (in abbreviated translation) a bunch of the special rules as
I could never remember them all and it took four pages - laminated. I'm more of a painter/collector than a player, but I think once I get back to playing I will
enjoy 7th. It's GW's game, so I go with the flow - it is what it is and the models are very cool. As for all the tables, Warlord traits, psykic phase,
mini objectives and all that, ton of details to deal with. Probably will need a cyborg's assistance for 10th edition. 4th was probably my favorite, just for the relative
simplicity. Maybe I'll cut and paste my favorite bits from the past editions and make my own rulebook.

I do a lot more modelling than fighting but i still make sure to play quite often, apart from the aircraft 6th wasn't my favourite :( but the book was laid out nicely and had a nice feel. i like 4th for a quick, functional game but 7th gives a whole new dimension (just a lot more remembering) and makes it feel more real

 insaniak wrote:

 Archonate wrote:
5th edition with the advent of TLoS shattered a lot of the imaginative aspect of the game. "Is that unit of prone snipers peeking over that low wall to fire, and be fired at? Nope, according to the 5th ed rules, they are literally sliding around the battlefield on their bellies, permanently as you see them." Model location is no longer represented by their base, assumed to be using available cover. Now the permanent pose of the model is always what that model is doing... Stupid, counter intuitive, unimaginative and lame..

You're misremembering here. 5th edition did not introduce TLOS... TLOS has formed the core of the LOS rules since Rogue Trader. Your prone snipers had that exact same problem in every prior edition as well, aside from during 4th edition if that low wall was part of a piece of area terrain.

Are you sure? I remember rulebooks from 2nd all the way thru 4th saying things like "You needn't assume that the static pose of your models represents exactly what your troops are doing at all times. Sometimes they are standing despite their crouching pose, and visa versa. Also, they are assumed to be making the best use of surrounding cover."
I remember 5th ed being the rulebook that more or less said "That static pose of your models is exactly what they're doing at all times when it comes to LoS."
I remember because it was (and still is) a very upsetting rule imo. I think it encourages the cheesy and exploitative rather than creative and fun modelling practices. I used to see a lot of incredible, dramatic stuff as far as model conversion, especially in 4th. It all disappeared in 5th because of TLoS.

Right. Nobody talked about modelling for advantage until TLoS returned.

There was a joke at my FLGS about the "crouchafex" which, in days of old was the least targetable monstrous creature, until 4th came along. When 5th came by, there was speculation that the crouchafex would return, but it never did (the guy had moved away).

Being able to set terrain as size one, and having infantry as size two, so able to see and shoot over it, but also take a cover save made things a lot more straightforward than having to go model by model to see who gets to shoot or get shot at, with which cover.

 Archonate wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Archonate wrote:
5th edition with the advent of TLoS shattered a lot of the imaginative aspect of the game. "Is that unit of prone snipers peeking over that low wall to fire, and be fired at? Nope, according to the 5th ed rules, they are literally sliding around the battlefield on their bellies, permanently as you see them." Model location is no longer represented by their base, assumed to be using available cover. Now the permanent pose of the model is always what that model is doing... Stupid, counter intuitive, unimaginative and lame..

You're misremembering here. 5th edition did not introduce TLOS... TLOS has formed the core of the LOS rules since Rogue Trader. Your prone snipers had that exact same problem in every prior edition as well, aside from during 4th edition if that low wall was part of a piece of area terrain.

Are you sure? I remember rulebooks from 2nd all the way thru 4th saying things like "You needn't assume that the static pose of your models represents exactly what your troops are doing at all times. Sometimes they are standing despite their crouching pose, and visa versa. Also, they are assumed to be making the best use of surrounding cover."
I remember 5th ed being the rulebook that more or less said "That static pose of your models is exactly what they're doing at all times when it comes to LoS."
I remember because it was (and still is) a very upsetting rule imo. I think it encourages the cheesy and exploitative rather than creative and fun modelling practices. I used to see a lot of incredible, dramatic stuff as far as model conversion, especially in 4th. It all disappeared in 5th because of TLoS.

I have a Space Marine with a boltgun that might be considered modelling for advantage nowadays. He's got no lower legs or feet, which was a cost-saving choice more than anything else. See, I had these tanks, and the leftover parts included a bit with a Space Marine standing up out of a cupola. So I took the legs from that, carefully took off the part attaching it to the cupola to leave only legs, and added a spare torso, arms, backpack, weapon, shoulderpads, and head. I then painted his base to look like a swamp as best I could (sinking thigh-deep into the swamp as it were). Judging by some of the looks I got when that model took to the field, some people probably thought I was MFA. Of course, those looks stopped when he got removed as one of the first casualties and I never nitpicked about being able to see him or not.

That was in third, when I was enough of a newb that I didn't even have the main rulebook and my knowledge of the rules came primarily from other people telling me during games.

The best skirmish game for 40k GW released was 2nd edition.
(The original 3rd edition skirmish game the studio were not allowed to release would have been my all time favorite.)

The best battle game GW released for the 40k universe was Epic Armageddon.

The series of hacked up skirmish games patched up with stupid amounts of extra rules ,(to sell even more minatures,) 3rd to 7th edition 40k, do not appeal to me much at all.

I prefer complex game play to complicated rules.

yeah, second was best for skirmishes but 7th is actually quite good for ranged weapons (excluding line of sight) and there are loads of special rules (especially for space marines) that are quite helpful. it does make games quite difficult and tedious but it is fun to work your way through rules!

Wow. People really think 2nd edition was "simpler" or "quicker"? You had to roll on random tables for pretty much everything (vehicle damage in particular was a chore). Many weapons (vortex 'nades, for instance) created persistent effects that had to be determined once per turn. And don't get me started on "sustained fire" and its dedicated set of die. Really, I think we're romanticising 2nd edition a bit too much.

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:
Wow. People really think 2nd edition was "simpler" or "quicker"? You had to roll on random tables for pretty much everything (vehicle damage in particular was a chore). Many weapons (vortex 'nades, for instance) created persistent effects that had to be determined once per turn. And don't get me started on "sustained fire" and its dedicated set of die. Really, I think we're romanticising 2nd edition a bit too much.

Indeed.

There must be a guy out there making a tidy profit in these-

 Archonate wrote:

Are you sure? I remember rulebooks from 2nd all the way thru 4th saying things like "You needn't assume that the static pose of your models represents exactly what your troops are doing at all times. Sometimes they are standing despite their crouching pose, and visa versa. Also, they are assumed to be making the best use of surrounding cover."
I remember 5th ed being the rulebook that more or less said "That static pose of your models is exactly what they're doing at all times when it comes to LoS."

Absolutely sure. From Rogue Trader through to 5th edition, they all used LOS drawn from the model's eyes, with no allowance for the model's pose to be ignored.

4th edition just added in the abstraction for when area terrain or close combats were involved.

I remember because it was (and still is) a very upsetting rule imo. I think it encourages the cheesy and exploitative rather than creative and fun modelling practices. I used to see a lot of incredible, dramatic stuff as far as model conversion, especially in 4th. It all disappeared in 5th because of TLoS.

So people said when 5th edition was released. The thing is, those exact same things were being said in every prior edition as well. The much-maligned 'crouching wraithlord' that was held up in 5th edition as the epitome of why TLOS is a bad thing? People were complaining about that being possible when I started playing way, way back in 1994, when they were still just called Dreadnoughts.

Bah, I think 2nd edition works perfectly fine for what it's best at- games of 1000-1500pts at most, where a standard force looks something like this potential Space marine force: a character or two, either independent or part of a squad, couple of squads for the bulk of the force, a bike squad, a single landspeeder or dreadnought depending on player taste, and maybe a vehicle or two-this includes any transport like a rhino or razorback for the earlier mentioned squads.

The problem is that even back in 2nd edition GW started trying to get us to play big 2000+ point games all the time, which while cool to look at on the table, they are where the granular nature of 2nd edition breaks down into a slog of work and takes too long.

2nd edition is absolutely awesome if you use it as a true Necromunda-style game (unsurprising, as Necro uses 3nd ed rules), where you eliminate squad cohesion, buy models individually, and play at very small 500-750 point games. Then it's basically like playing Necromunda, but instead of just normal humans, you get to use all the evocative forces seen in the wider 40K universe, like Space Marines and Squats and Eldar, without trying to balance them against a gang of human thugs like Necromunda tried to do a couple of times. Basically Kill Team, before Kill Team was ever a thing.

So I would have to say that I love 2nd edition for that, and for large-force gaming I love playing in what was the middle of 4th edition. It keeps the speed of 3rd, but polishes the assault phase, and I get to use all those cool 2nd tier codex forces, like Space Wolves Thirteenth Company, or Kroot Mercs back when Kroot could throw more dice at an assault than Orks!.

I don't ever recall situation back then where my friends or myself counted a model absolutely as it was sculpted. We just took that for granted. Hell, games like Necromunda and Inquisitor plainly state that's how they intended the rules to be interpreted, with drawings to illustrate everything plainly.

That being said, Area terrain improves things greatly as long as you aren't dealing with donkey-cave opponents. My buddy and I even ported such rules into games without them, like AT-43 and Confrontation Age of Ragnorok, and it made things so much easier.

I first played in 5th edition. I did not enjoy the experience, and after two games, I left to go play fantasy.
I rejoined halfway through 6th, and I liked what I saw. I really got into the game, and that was when I built my armies up.
Now that it's 7th, I'm having even more fun, especially since the physic phase actually makes physic powers manageable.
If I were to play competitively, I don't know if I'd like 7th as much. But I play for fun, so it's all good.

second did have a lot of weird tables but 7th has 4 phases and quite a few odd rules and a heck of a lot more tiny steps to do than say 5th edition. i do get your point though

Every edition I've played had its pros and cons.

-5th was straightforward, but it was too much abstracted, with silliness like "1 guys nose showing -> entire squad is shot to bits". Wound allocation was horrible. Cover rules (as they were interpreted) gave 4+ cover in almost every situation, making Orks ridiculously resilient. Book missions were too simple.

-6th introduced lots of good ideas which were often poorly thought of. Rules were sloppily written, with huge errata released. Book missions became more complicated, but alas also less playable and annoying to set up (my biggest gripe about 6th/7th edition).

-7th is like 6th but better in nearly every respect. Unfortunately some annoying things in 6th were not addressed at all. I am also of opinion that the biggest problem of 7th edition is the Codeci, not the BRB. The army books have too much silly crap like Warp Storm and Mob rule.

-I didn't play 4th but what I've read about it, doesn't sound like I'd have liked it as much as 5th or 7th.

good ideas, 4th was ok but it was a bit construed in parts. overall i liked it (apart from the space marine codex layout although i do miss terminator command squads :') )as it was fun and i liked the way they included a lot ( i mean a lot) of fluff

Did 2nd edition have over complicated rules, and some elements that were overpowered?
Yes .
BUT the model count was lower, as it was a skirmish game, so model focused rules made sense.
And the complicated rules delivered much deeper game play in terms of tactical options and characterful interaction.

3rd edition to 7th edition 40k was up scaled to a battle game
This means it should be about detailed UNIT interaction.But it is not, so the rules are over complicated and deliver very restricted game play.

All editions of 40k have been over complicated.
And they get more over complicated each edition of the game.

Its almost like the rules are written to sell the latest new shiney minatures, and not much thought is given to game play at all....

There were a lot more decisions to be made in 2nd, for all of the random (you had to commit to charges before other movement or shooting, so no cracking off a few rounds and seeing who needs a kicking later on down the line, overwatch was a genuine trade off, rather than extra free shooting and another tax on assault focussed armies)

I guess I felt a lot more like I played a game in 2nd (and 5th I suppose as well) whereas I more feel like I participate in a game of 6th+.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I guess I felt a lot more like I played a game in 2nd (and 5th I suppose as well) whereas I more feel like I participate in a game of 6th+.

I honestly have no idea where you are coming from. On the not so rare occasions I get kurbstomped (all my games seem to be me kurbstomping of being kurbstomped), I don't feel like I'm just there to participate in my opponent's win, which is the only time I can see someone feeling like this.

5th was a pain for me as i only had tau back then ><
and not the mass spam broadside build.

6th was a blur and 7th is mediocre but mostly playable.

Played 3rd, 5th, 6th and 7th. Have to say the most fun games came playing in 5th edition. Could play a game much quicker than now with less rules, tables, missions, phases etc. List building was much easier too. It's challenging trying to keep up with new formations and data slates. For me at least, I preferred 5th over 6/7 due to simplicity.

5th really brought me (back) into the game fluff-wise, when they (briefly) stopped taking everything so damn serious (sadly, they've lapsed back for the most part).

7th is a more enjoyable set of rules though. It rolls well for me, game after game after game.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I guess I felt a lot more like I played a game in 2nd (and 5th I suppose as well) whereas I more feel like I participate in a game of 6th+.

I honestly have no idea where you are coming from. On the not so rare occasions I get kurbstomped (all my games seem to be me kurbstomping of being kurbstomped), I don't feel like I'm just there to participate in my opponent's win, which is the only time I can see someone feeling like this.

That isn't what I meant at all.

One of my biggest issues with modern 40K is the constant removal of player input and decision making in lieu of rolling for stuff on a table (as a daemons player I'm even more acutely aware of this I guess) and while there were lots of tables in 2nd, they were a consequence of your actions, not a replacement, in many instances.

If I lose, I'd like to think it's because I've made bad/wrong decisions, not because I rolled a 5 when I needed 7+ on 2D6 (and that exact thing has essentially happened to me with the "hilarious" warp storm table.)