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.

OP: I hear you about the siren call to return to it together with the leeriness to give GW money for it.

The 40K setting is one easy to fall in love with and twist to suit your whims, since it's compelling and interesting and over the top and can be as cerebral or cathartic as you want. With a bit of jumping through narrative hoops, there's very little that falls outside the realm of plausibility. It's less openly self-aware and comic than it was back in 2nd, in a way I feel is to its slight detriment, but it is still 40K.

On the other hand, the game is at this point absolutely a blatant money grab. GW is egregiously price gouging on an awkward, obsolete sales model that it has a perceived monopoly on, and this is one of the reasons you're getting discouraged from trying (or at least buying) 40K 9th by some of this community for reasons with which I entirely sympathize; Continued financial success on GW's part with this will only encourage its behavior. You'd become part of the problem, because why change what works?

And while, yes, 9th is more an evolution of 8th than a new edition unlike 7th-8th, no, there is no indication that they won't just rewrite everything in a couple years. One of my favorite little ranting points is that the books are especially worthless, because they're A) physical books in a game that keeps getting patched periodically in some weird Cronenberg-esque fusion between an online and a PnP game, meaning the rules within them may not even be accurate in a month and they'll sometimes even charge you for the patches; and B) hideously overpriced because they're mandatorily bundled with a bunch of story, artwork, and gloss army showcases you may or may not care about, like you're basically forced to get the Collector's Edition of a major game release to play the game at all, and C) may not last more than a year or so before being replaced entirely. Codex: Space Marines 2.0 from 8th was $40USD and lasted all of 14 months before being replaced by a $50 book. At least when you buy a model marked up by 200%, it's still a model in two months, unless you have a large housepet or roommate with an iron jaw and particularly nondiscerning palate.

The state of 9th's rules themselves I mostly leave to those better experienced. I tried to start a group with some longtime online friends and either played or helped mediate/teach just under a dozen games over Tabletop Simulator during the first months of the edition, and this went disastrously for reasons that were honestly only partially GW's fault.

If you're interested in the hobby but put off by the idea of giving GW money for it, fret not, there are options. You can buy old armies off eBay and strip the paint off, or get a 3D resin printer, which can lead you down quite magical rabbit holes, and I'm learning a lot about digital modelling in the process. For the rules, there are ... references online, as well as alternate (and far cheaper) rulesets entirely, like the aforementioned Grimdark Future.

Best of luck whichever way you take this.

40k has lost it's best feature since 8th edition rolled out. That's personalization. Before you can grab a model and stick on whatever weapons from the box and beyond and it will probably have been a legal build. Now the restrictions are so tight that kit bashing and converting are pointless for a lot of models and is now done for aesthetic reasons

The tide is turning against GW as more people are locked down with time to reflect, both on GW greediness, as well as over alternatives. Without radical change, GW is losing the loyalty that had brought them this far.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

123ply wrote:
40k has lost it's best feature since 8th edition rolled out. That's personalization. Before you can grab a model and stick on whatever weapons from the box and beyond and it will probably have been a legal build. Now the restrictions are so tight that kit bashing and converting are pointless for a lot of models and is now done for aesthetic reasons

I went back to playing 3rd. To tell you how easy it was, I was able to get a regular opponent for 3rd who didn't start playing until late 6th edition.

Find where you're most happy rules wise, THEN worry about using internet resources to find opponents. If you have a FLGS that is open during these times, like I do, then you would only have to post in the store for a retrogaming night and potentially offer to teach younger players the older systems.

Thanks for the replies everyone.

After considering my options for a few days, I have decided not to buy Warhammer 40K. I don't want to give them my money on principle, they're just not a moral company, I'd feel too much like a sucker.

No offence intended to everyone who has bought 9th Ed., I did strongly consider it and almost went through with it and still may in the future. All it would take is for them to release a statement saying, "this is it for the foreseeable future, we're just going to build on this, no more new versions" and I would change my tune.

But for the moment, I even avoid buying GW paints, much of which are expensive versions of paint diluted to different consistencies so they can be sold as "special purpose" paint, all complete with containers purposely designed to waste as much of it as possible as opposed to the eminently sensible and efficient dropper bottles everyone has used for the past 2 decades. And don't get me started on their ridiculously over-priced, sub-par-quality brushes that are more expensive than a top-shelf Windsor & Newton ... so obviously I'm ranting already ... so why would I go and buy a huge collector's edition boxed set from them that's likely going to be obsolete-by-marketing-design in 18 months?

I am however still interested in the game and may instead do as suggested and investigate some older editions and older miniatures - obviously from my posts, I far prefer the older miniatures anyway, before they all became gigantic. I won't even dive into that straight away as it seems unlikely I'd ever get a game. But I could collect two or three small ~500pt armies and have one-offs with friends that don't usually play 40K, and I'm thinking along those lines. I don't need the latest version for that.

So ... obviously this is going to open a huge can of worms ... but which of the old versions is best? To give an idea of my own personal preferences, I'd prefer a version that uses the 28mm miniature scale (I suppose it doesn't make that much difference if all the models are of the same scale, but fwiw), I also prefer the slightly more serious atmosphere of the later versions. I'm really not a big fan of GW-cartoonish comedy. A little bit is okay but I prefer it to be kept in check.

PieInTheSky wrote:
...I am however still interested in the game and may instead do as suggested and investigate some older editions and older miniatures - obviously from my posts, I far prefer the older miniatures anyway, before they all became gigantic. I won't even dive into that straight away as it seems unlikely I'd ever get a game. But I could collect two or three small ~500pt armies and have one-offs with friends that don't usually play 40K, and I'm thinking along those lines. I don't need the latest version for that.

So ... obviously this is going to open a huge can of worms ... but which of the old versions is best? To give an idea of my own personal preferences, I'd prefer a version that uses the 28mm miniature scale (I suppose it doesn't make that much difference if all the models are of the same scale, but fwiw), I also prefer the slightly more serious atmosphere of the later versions. I'm really not a big fan of GW-cartoonish comedy. A little bit is okay but I prefer it to be kept in check.

I don't know if "best" is an easy answer here. 1e/2e are looser and more skirmish-y than the later game and were much more customizable but much more bookkeeping-intensive. 3e-5e were probably the most straightforward 40k has ever been; they had facings and blast templates, but the scale was a lot more manageable and there was a lot more care taken to keep the cross-Codex balance more standardized. 6e/7e had some of the most well-standardized and comprehensive core rules but were thrown badly out of whack by poor Codex-writing decisions and special rule creep. 30k (6e/7e with Forge World historical Imperium/Chaos armies, no xenos) is in many ways fixed/better 7th, but the lack of xenos makes it a hard sell to players and you can't usually get the minis cheaply unless you're all right with doing a lot of converting/proxying.

I'd suggest 4th or 5th as an entry point if you want to go for GW-made rules. If you go over to Proposed Rules you'll find a few people working on their own homebrew content; I'd started a rewrite of 7th (link in my signature) but have mostly pivoted to working on a Necromunda-based skirmish 40k game right now, Mezmorki's got a working project that patches the 5e core rules to allow for Codexes/content from 3rd through to 7th in active development, not sure which others approach playability. There are also "one page" rules floating around if you like the minis and aren't too fussed about the rules, and Kill Team (both the GW product and the Heralds of Ruin project) if you're more interested in the smaller/skirmishier end.

The GW golden age around here was 5th ed. Though 3rd and 4th both had their good points and their strange stinker rules. It may not be too hard to find some of those old rule books and give them a read through and maybe see which one strikes your fancy.

In my opinion 3rd Ed. using the army lists in the rulebook will be the most balanced 40K you will probably ever play. It's the Codices that fethed up that system.

 Just Tony wrote:
In my opinion 3rd Ed. using the army lists in the rulebook will be the most balanced 40K you will probably ever play. It's the Codices that fethed up that system.

you can say that pretty thoroughly for most editions, but especially 6th/7th...But with the caveat that sales encuracing er,,,, meant formations didn't help it either.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
In my opinion 3rd Ed. using the army lists in the rulebook will be the most balanced 40K you will probably ever play. It's the Codices that fethed up that system.

you can say that pretty thoroughly for most editions, but especially 6th/7th...But with the caveat that sales encuracing er,,,, meant formations didn't help it either.

The difference being that neither of those editions had internally and externally balanced lists included from the get go. 3rd Ed. was sort of like 6th Ed. WFB with Ravening Hordes in that respect.

3rd or 5th would be my recommendation. The advantage with 3rd is you can just buy the core rulebook secondhand or whatever and you have lists for a bunch of armies already in the book that work fairly well. You don't get as many fancy toys but it is a fun game especially for the sort of small forces you are looking to play at.

5e is my favourite edition, but some of the stuff toward the end I didn't like that much like the addition of flyers and so on. But for 500-1000 point games of a few squads of infantry and a big monster or tank, it works really well.

And for a simple and accessible game for free, I think it is definitely worth checking out Grimdark Future. It has lists for all the factions plus extra lists for stuff like Space Dwarves and non-chaos Human rebels, and the rules are all free and miniature agnostic. It is very stripped down and simple though, and that is not to everyone's taste.

3rd was a great edition, maybe my favourite, although I wouldn't recommend to avoid codexes and just use the rulebook. So much will be missed and basically nothing (but buying one less book) will be gained.

Older editions like 3rd or 5th don't have the problems people may face when they do pick up games against strangers; choosing old editions is entirely a matter of casual players that want to have fun and codex creep shouldn't exist in such environment. During those editions codex creep was also very limited compared to 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th so it's actually quite easy to play fairly balanced games.

Basically just avoid Chaos 3.5 in 3rd and Grey Knights in 5th, then both 3rd and 5th can be played using whatever armies and units people like to use.

During 7th I managed to find someone that was willing to revamp those editions and I had a lot of fun at that time. Now everyone sticks to 9th or AoS here, it's already hard to find opponents for the current version of Necromunda, let alone older editions of 40k. I'd really love playing a few more games of 3rd.

 Just Tony wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
In my opinion 3rd Ed. using the army lists in the rulebook will be the most balanced 40K you will probably ever play. It's the Codices that fethed up that system.

you can say that pretty thoroughly for most editions, but especially 6th/7th...But with the caveat that sales encuracing er,,,, meant formations didn't help it either.

The difference being that neither of those editions had internally and externally balanced lists included from the get go. 3rd Ed. was sort of like 6th Ed. WFB with Ravening Hordes in that respect.

Also true...

i miss those , they often were a great foundation for campaigns.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:
3rd was a great edition, maybe my favourite, although I wouldn't recommend to avoid codexes and just use the rulebook. So much will be missed and basically nothing (but buying one less book) will be gained.

Older editions like 3rd or 5th don't have the problems people may face when they do pick up games against strangers; choosing old editions is entirely a matter of casual players that want to have fun and codex creep shouldn't exist in such environment. During those editions codex creep was also very limited compared to 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th so it's actually quite easy to play fairly balanced games.

Basically just avoid Chaos 3.5 in 3rd and Grey Knights in 5th, then both 3rd and 5th can be played using whatever armies and units people like to use.

During 7th I managed to find someone that was willing to revamp those editions and I had a lot of fun at that time. Now everyone sticks to 9th or AoS here, it's already hard to find opponents for the current version of Necromunda, let alone older editions of 40k. I'd really love playing a few more games of 3rd.

TBF, chaos 3.5 has 2 issue lists and the rest is ... well it exists, let's formulate it that way.
As for 5th grey knights... boi, that is some IH supplement release nonsense level.

But yeah overall if you find someone and can with the knowledge of hindsight avoid the pitfalls you can make these two editions in some of the best 40k fun there is.

The problem I would see with 3rd out of the rulebook is there are no Tau, which is a shame. But if you give Tau their codex and everyone else is out of the rulebook, tau are going to kick everyone else's arses.

I recently got a copy of the 3e rulebook though from a used book seller and I do love it. The missions in particular are wonderful and I love all the additional rules in it for those sorts of games.

Must see about getting a 4e and 5e rulebook someday too.

Best edition really depends on what you like


2nd was more like an RPG in many ways and you almost need a DM to guide the game.

3rd-7th were the cross compatible editions where the mechanics were basically the same with a few tweeks here and there. 3rd and 4th were more lore heavy while 5th was more refined. the problem is some of the best rules didn't stay in the next edition when they fixed other rules that were problems.

3rd had terrible things like the old "guess" weapons for templates where is you guessed wrong on the distance you could not even fire it. that was fixed with the scatter dice + BS reduction for targets in LOS with 4th

4th overpowered skimmer vehicles especially eldar and to a lesser extent tau while making non skimmers death traps

5th had a wonky wound allocation system that on it's face made sense but was quickly abused by comp players. many people also complained about how tanks got more resilient compared to 4th, but at the same time AT weapons became more available so it was a wash in the end.

To fix most of those issues without having to do much to the game(we do not make our own rules) our group just uses 5th for the core rules/USRs and imported in the best versions of the rules from 3rd, 4th and 7th that fit better in 5th. (a total of 15 rules like snap fire, grenade throwing, overwatch, sniper weapon rules etc..) this allows players to use whichever codex they think best fits the lore of the faction from editions 3rd-7th when building their armies. for example our chaos players always use the best codex ever written-the 3.5 chaos dex. where as myself i use the, demon hunters, witch hunters, and dark angels from 3rd/3.5. then tau, ork, eldar(the skimmer problem goes away with the changes to vehicle rules in 5th) and nid codexes from 4th while i use 5th for core marines, blood angels, space wolves, imperial guard. while pulling in the "new" factions like custodes and mechanicus from 7th.

It all works out pretty seamlessly leading to some really fun and sometimes silly games (blood frenzy sometimes means your berserkers don't always go where you want them to)

I have posted many of our battle reports in my topic on the matter to give you an overview. keep in mind our groups approach is to have a fun gaming experiences as a casual group (many of us have been playing 40K going on 20 years and some other games longer) more focused on playing within the lore of the setting not squeezing out every ounce of performance for it's sake alone.

P.S. almost forgot, a great way to play small games-get a copy of the 4th ed main rules and look up combat patrols

400 points or less
.custom scenarios
-Required units
1HQ(only 1 HQ allowed)
1troop

every other unit option in the FOC is allowed except heavy vehicles (vehicles are limited to combined AV of 33-it was 32 but when necrons got vehcles in 5th that were almost all 11/11/11 so we "in house" updated it), ordinance weapons, and a few other items.

+1 to the above post

I think 5th strikes the best balance overall. It added a few fun gameplay options like allowing units to run or dive for cover - but is by and large fairly similar to 3rd and 4th.

Seriously - google "Amazon 5th edition 40K rulebook". There are FIFTY used copies for sale and the cheapest one starts at $2.50 plus $4 for shipping for "good" condition. Very good condition copies sell for a staggering $10.

PieInTheSky wrote:
Thanks for the replies everyone.

After considering my options for a few days, I have decided not to buy Warhammer 40K. I don't want to give them my money on principle, they're just not a moral company, I'd feel too much like a sucker.

No offence intended to everyone who has bought 9th Ed., I did strongly consider it and almost went through with it and still may in the future. All it would take is for them to release a statement saying, "this is it for the foreseeable future, we're just going to build on this, no more new versions" and I would change my tune.

But for the moment, I even avoid buying GW paints, much of which are expensive versions of paint diluted to different consistencies so they can be sold as "special purpose" paint, all complete with containers purposely designed to waste as much of it as possible as opposed to the eminently sensible and efficient dropper bottles everyone has used for the past 2 decades. And don't get me started on their ridiculously over-priced, sub-par-quality brushes that are more expensive than a top-shelf Windsor & Newton ... so obviously I'm ranting already ... so why would I go and buy a huge collector's edition boxed set from them that's likely going to be obsolete-by-marketing-design in 18 months?

I am however still interested in the game and may instead do as suggested and investigate some older editions and older miniatures - obviously from my posts, I far prefer the older miniatures anyway, before they all became gigantic. I won't even dive into that straight away as it seems unlikely I'd ever get a game. But I could collect two or three small ~500pt armies and have one-offs with friends that don't usually play 40K, and I'm thinking along those lines. I don't need the latest version for that.

So ... obviously this is going to open a huge can of worms ... but which of the old versions is best? To give an idea of my own personal preferences, I'd prefer a version that uses the 28mm miniature scale (I suppose it doesn't make that much difference if all the models are of the same scale, but fwiw), I also prefer the slightly more serious atmosphere of the later versions. I'm really not a big fan of GW-cartoonish comedy. A little bit is okay but I prefer it to be kept in check.

Hate to sound like a broken record but did you ever check out Kill Team? If you prefer smaller armies of around 500 points, a Kill Team is only slightly below that scale.

PieInTheSky wrote:
But I could collect two or three small ~500pt armies and have one-offs with friends that don't usually play 40K, and I'm thinking along those lines. I don't need the latest version for that.

I believe you absolutely need the latest version for that.
4th through 7th were absolutely unplayable without a heavy investment in learning rules, and older editions with ugly models that aren't even easy to source will surely be more complex than 8th+

8th and 9th you can play within a reasonable timeframe without much preparation.

That said, rules cost 0, points you can get with battlescribe, you don't need to give GW one dollar if you don't feel like it.

I mean, you are clearly wrong Morgoth. You absolutely don't need the rules for that.

But you make a good point, you can download the rules for those editions and try them out at no cost. OP might find they enjoy the style of game more than the previous style.

As for older editions with ugly models, I mean I don't understand? There are models in play in 9th edition that have been the same for 7 editions. Not a small number either. So I kinda feel like your post is more like propaganda than discussion.

This is the exact opposite of current reality as for basically the first time ever (or at least in recent years) GW is actively making missions and providing support for games at 500-1000 points, specifically to help people get into the game.

Sort of? I mean they promised "500 point" games, and I personally, feel like 9th plays best at the 1000 point level, but 500 is still unplayable without a ton of agreed-upon-beforehand restrictions and considerations. Almost anything less than 1000 and the game gets really tricky if you don't have a regular group where you can talk to them and make agreements on stuff like this. On its own, it doesn't function well at those levels.


@ PieInTheSky:

Like the poster above me, I would second Kill Team, Even if you go with an older edition of 40k for your bigger battles, Kill Team is still a surprisingly good and fun game!

As far as older editions go - Rogue Trader (also known as 1st edition) is almost unplayable, and it may be hard to track down. 2nd is fun, but fairly complex with a lot of game aids that you will end up either having to make, or, again, track down. I found 3rd to be too streamlined (for me it was actually even less tactical than 8th). 4th was a step in the right direction, but I think, with the benefit of hindsight, 5th was probably the best over-all edition. I would recommend starting there.

 Da Boss wrote:
As for older editions with ugly models, I mean I don't understand? There are models in play in 9th edition that have been the same for 7 editions. Not a small number either.

Indeed and they are unbearably ugly.
Beyond memberberries I don't see how anyone could want to look at these ugly pieces of incompetent sculpting crap (sure, not *everything*, but omg.. 2nd ed miniatures. yukk.).

What's nice with playing a more recent edition is that it will have rules for all models, including many of the incredibly nice, clean, crisp, detailed sculpts that were released in the recent years.

As someone who plays warhammer for models first, that would be a huge factor in picking an edition.

Imagine you just love GSC and you want to play 5th ed.
Doesn't sound like that'll work out too great now does it?


How about picking an edition without bias ?
Why would you even go for anything but the latest edition that most people play ?
What happens when you make a new friend, who loves 40K, and is not completely crazy so he actually plays the current edition ?

 Da Boss wrote:

So I kinda feel like your post is more like propaganda than discussion.

In the face of so much salt by players who have been salty around here for more than five years straight, through every edition, and who even dare to state that there is as much salt on 8th as there is on 7th ???

At some point, it's a good idea to just look outside of the dakka pit of endless saltiness and realize that people just love GW for the models they're putting out, that most people don't find it too expensive to buy, and that things like AOS and 40k 8th edition have vastly increased the overall appeal of the games and influx of new blood, through very basic means like making the game more playable, less tedious and overall more fun.

Yes, it might not be what you want, or what you like, but pretending that it's anything but a huge glaring success is just crazy.

e.g. I won't ever play AoS because the models are just fething slowed. Not interested sorry.
Won't touch it with a ten foot pole, keep your elves with horns and your crazy shark-riding wtfantasy.
For sure, such a *great* idea has to be the epitome of copyrightable, I don't think anyone was ever *smart* enough to come up with those *awesome* ideas for armies.
Still a huge success, and an awesome game according to most people who have tried it.

What's nice with playing a more recent edition is that it will have rules for all models, including many of the incredibly nice, clean, crisp, detailed sculpts that were released in the recent years.

I mean, it's a pretty trivial thing to just buy Intercessors and say they're true-scale Marines. You can use whatever models you want, so the OP doesn't even have to use GW models at all. There's no rule in any edition that says "In X edition you must only play with models that were made during X edition"

That objection doesn't even make sense. Playing 2nd ed but don't like the 2nd ed boys? Good news! The current boys will work just fine! Don't like the old Land Raider? Do a conversion of a vehicle you DO like, or just use a newer one. Like I said, your train of though here just makes little sense to me.

There's also no reason why playing older editions rules means you can't use the newer models.

Hey morgoth, you seem to be projecting a lot of anger onto my post.

I have acknowledged that 40K is a big success. I think that is cool, because as you point out, it provides me with cool minis to play with.

It isn't quite to my taste but that doesn't mean I think it is bad. It just isn't for me at the moment. I might change my mind.

But I can't understand your really extreme POV. I am not saying the OP or anyone else should not try 8th or 9th, everyone should figure out for themselves what they like and there is no cost to trying the rules if you have minis.

But your extreme POV is as bad as the posts you are decrying really.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
There's also no reason why playing older editions rules means you can't use the newer models.

Shhhhhhhh!!! Don't tell 'em that /s

One of my newphews got the Indomitus box over the holiday's. We're using the lovely new mini's but playing an older edition, just substituting things around that don't have a parallel. I'm tempted to design a "Primasis-only" codex to use with classic editions.

 Da Boss wrote:
Hey morgoth, you seem to be projecting a lot of anger onto my post.

I don't think there's anything wrong with your post, or any anger in it, it's just that in the general context of this forum, and thread, it could pass for an apology of the extreme saltiness of 50% of the posts.

My words might be extreme, but they're actually presenting a middle-of-the-road, normal world view.
Not some crazy salty ex-player, not some crazy fanboyish new-player.

Just someone who looks at the whole thing and can't believe how insanely excessively salty the overall tone of the discussion is.
I guess that extreme refusal of reality must be what irks me and in turn makes my communication that strong in the opposite direction.

That said, my replies are irrelevant and will be as usual drowned in the general noise, I just sometimes feel like a new player or potential returning player deserves a more reasonable point of view than what generally comes out on dakka.

I can understand why that would be pretty frustrating. Maybe I should leave the 40K forum alone, I've seen this viewpoint expressed by more than one poster recently.

morgoth wrote:
That said, my replies are irrelevant and will be as usual drowned in the general noise, I just sometimes feel like a new player or potential returning player deserves a more reasonable point of view than what generally comes out on dakka.

Your post's aren't getting drowned

I feel like this thread has been pretty 50/50 on whether to go with the current edition or try something older - and most of the posts from both camps have been pretty pragmatic about the pro's and con's of going either way.

I have a preference for older editions, no question. But I fully acknowledge that if a new player wants to actually play the game and plans on joining an established player community, they'll probably need to be playing and keeping up with the latest edition. If that isn't the priority, and they are fine with garage hammer and forming their own group, the sky is the limit. In this case, it is at least worth considering playing an older edition over the newest.

Playing Current Edition (9th)

Pro: Larger player base, it's what most people/places are going to be using
Pro: New models and units are available. Newer models are generally higher quality.
Pro: It's where the competitive scene is at (tournaments, etc.)

Neutral: The gameplay is different than "classic" 40K. More complexity at Codex level, focus on list building, combos, stratagem play
Neutral: You're giving GW your money

Con: Not all codexes are released yet for the current edition
Con: Need to "keep up" with updates/FAQs etc to stay in the know
Con: More expensive - codexes cost more, new mini's more expensive than used, need to buy rule updates, etc.

Playing Classic Editions (2nd or 3rd-7th)

Pro: "Stable" game - all codexes are released, rules released, etc.
Pro: Cheaper - old books can be found used for very cheap, older mini's for cheap
Pro: Opens up the opportunity for house-rules or minor rule tweaks to suit your tastes. Easier to make the experience "your own"

Neutral: The gameplay is different than "modern" 40K. More detailed core rules but generally simpler codexes. More emphasis on table-level tactics over list/combo bulding.
Neutral: You're probably not giving GW a dime

Con: Harder to find opponents and/or convince people to play older version
Con: Some newer models don't exist as unit types in older codexes - need to use these as a substitution
Con: Miss out on the "zeitgeist" of the current edition (i.e. discussions of strategy, lists, release hype, etc.). YMMV

Honestly Morgoth - I'm not sure how comments like this:

Indeed and they are unbearably ugly.
Beyond memberberries I don't see how anyone could want to look at these ugly pieces of incompetent sculpting crap (sure, not *everything*, but omg.. 2nd ed miniatures. yukk.).

Really mesh with:

My words might be extreme, but they're actually presenting a middle-of-the-road, normal world view.

I mean it's not like this:

There has never yet been a better time to come back to 40K, anyone who is not currently pissed off at GW will be able to admit as much.

Is a "moderate", "middle of the road" opinion ...

You may think you're presenting a balanced view, but you are not coming off like that. A lot of your posts actually seem saltier than most of the posts in this thread (which, imo has actually been a pretty constructive/informative thread). I'm not pointing this out to attack you btw. Just pointing out that you may not be coming across the way you intend to be coming across.

I can understand why that would be pretty frustrating. Maybe I should leave the 40K forum alone, I've seen this viewpoint expressed by more than one poster recently.

Nah. I for one have enjoyed your posts. You do have to put some folks on "ignore", but I wouldn't take Morgoth's view for the whole of it. I don't think they realize how they are coming off. You can't say "Anyone who doesn't like the current time period is just a hater", and "I'm just trying to be fair and balanced" in the same thread and have them be true, and you definitely can't be the saltiest sounding person in the thread and then complain that you're being "drowned out by the salty ex players" ... lol

EDIT:

PieInTheSky wrote:
But I could collect two or three small ~500pt armies and have one-offs with friends that don't usually play 40K, and I'm thinking along those lines. I don't need the latest version for that.

Missed this before. If you're looking for 500 point games specifically, you might be better off with an older edition as it's easier to get more balanced games at that point level without a ton of caveats and house rules. Starting with roughly 6th ed, there's too much variance in what you can take at that level. I still think you would do well to look at 5th for this, or possibly even 3rd (although 3rd wasn't to my personal liking as it felt over-simplified).

I would say one of the strongest "Pro" that playing an older edition would have, is you're already kind-of-sort-of-little-bit playing by house rules anyway.

And once people are comfortable with that mindset, I think it's easier to have a conversation with your opponent regarding the balance, and things you'd both like to play, and basic things like, "Hey, that codex is pretty strong compared to this one... mind if I take some extra points to help balance things?" is easy and comfortable. If you're building your own armies to play against each other, you'll get a feel for which is "stronger" and you can do your own in-house balancing by adding or subtracting points... changing rules... lots of things are negotiable.

I for one LOVED the old deep-strike rules. Take a risk, see where you land... And you can negotiate whole-sale changes to rules. Like, I never liked blast templates or flamer templates. So I would advocate large blast rolls to hit as normal, and if you hit, score 5 hits instead. Small blast = 3 hits if you hit, and if you're in 9" with a flamer, score 3 hits, if you're within 5" you score 5 hits.

And I could go on, of course. There are a lot of good, fun, playable rules throughout the editions. So if you find someone / a group that is willing to chop up the best from each edition you could really make the game your own.


RE: 2nd edition sculpts - Chaos Terminators, Chaos Dreadnaughts, and the old Abbadon model got me into 40k. I've recently bought a bunch of the old, used Terminators and Dreads to make a Black Legion Spearhead. Yes, I'm adding the new Abby, and a new Sorceror in Terminator Armour, and using a trio of converted, old Abby models for the unit champions, and I might convert a multi-melta to an old metal Dread... but the fundamentals of that army's build will be 2nd edition, metal models.

And I hate working with metal models... but I still like their look, and I can finally play the army I wanted to right from the beginning. (A "elites" detachment featuring 3x Termies, 2x Dreads, 1x Abby, 1x Sorceror, and 1x Land Raider @ 1500 points). Not all sculpts have aged well, but I still like them more than just Nostalgia factor.