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.

I'm sure I have made one of these posts before in the past but I guess come a new edition, a new poll to gauge responses.

Some background - I have quite an extensive 40K collection now, built up over many, many years and over many, many editions, stretching right back to 2nd Ed. At this point, I have pretty much an army of every single 40K race at or above at least 2000 points. One of the main annoyances whenever GW release a new edition is that I then have to get all the various codexes to play all my armies (I know, first world problems and all that) and it can get quite expensive. Obviously, this is not an issue right now as 10th has released with indexes for all armies, I gather, but I suspect it is only a matter of time before codexes start trickling in and the cycle starts all over again.

So at this point, I can either jump to the new edition or I can play whatever edition I want to - the only downside being that the further one goes back in time, edition-wise, the more my model collection gets invalidated, as all these shiny new models no longer have rules.

Having said all that, I figured what better than to litmus test the Dakka hivemind to see what is the favoured edition and why so please answer the poll and pop a comment down below as to what you picked and why. Full disclosure - all my games are played at home against my son so no need for competitively balanced rules or anything like that; I am purely looking for the enjoyment factor, ease of use, slick rules writing and all that good stuff.

Third, because that's when I started.

Also, whichever edition had build your own nid because that was a LOT of fun.

Voted Rogue Trader, for me thats where I joined the insanity.

it has a flavour and the way the background is written is very much "of its time", which I like

yes you needed either a GM or a cooperative opponent but for small scale games and small campaigns it was excellent, through in the Space Hulk corridors and Judge Dredd or similar floor plans and you had a lovely way to play small raids etc. Adding Advanced Space Crusade floor tiles just added to the mayhem

couple with the compatibility with WHFB 3rd edition and for me it wins hands down as the edition I had the most fun win

Early 5th. Codex creep was brutal and uneven though.

A.T. wrote:
Early 5th. Codex creep was brutal and uneven though.

I really liked 5th, but I don't think I could go back to it. Blast markers were such a bad game mechanic that we are now free of. They slowed down the movement phase so much, with all the worry over coherency. I played infantry heavy Guard though, so I know I was an outlier. Also, scatter dice were almost perfectly designed to cause arguments. It is almost physically impossible for two people to look at a scatter dice and see the same result, so people in good faith would both think the other was wrong. Parallax is a cruel mistress.

You are right about the codex creep though. Complex wound allocation is one of the worst things that has ever darkened the game of 40k. Draigo paladin blobs were just stupid.

Personally, I have no idea which edition I think is best. Nostalgia probably warps any memories I have. Maybe early 7th? It is a bit of a blur with all the nonsense that came later in that edition. I may even say 10th, although it needs a lot of the rough edges worked out with FAQs, and the lack of wargear points is a real problem for me.

Not really a fan of 40K, KT21 is my main game, I only play 40K because thats what most of the people in our gaming group are into. Therefore, when it comes to 40K, the 1st edition original is the one I prefer, just because it is the ground zero for all things 40K. Its also the edition which lore resonates with me the most

4th ed was the best. 3.5 Codexes and 4th codexes were the peak of modularity and customization.

5th ed brought on hyper-TLOS, major high AP proliferation, terrible wound-tracking mechanics, and parking lot deployments.

9th edition- specifically Escalation-style, Crusade campaign-based play. I like it because it is the best facilitator of narrative campaigning
that I've ever had from 40k.


I also liked 2nd because it lasted longer than any other edition, and I hate the concept of edition churn more than I dislike any particular rules set.

I am pretty vocal on the subject.

.core rules-5th edition hands down

i started in 3rd and played through early 8th, then went back to 5th with some house rules fixes, because as good as 5th was it did have problems that are easily fixed by using some rules from other editions (like the wound allocation system, 4th is easier and more fun so we use that instead). it also helps that all 3rd -7th ed codexes are cross compatible. so you can use whichever ones are your favorite.

40K was best when it was games of epic thematic battles in the 40K universe. with the right attitude it is a fantastic game. if you are looking to play tournaments and start worrying about "balance" classic 40k really isn't a good game in that setting.

Atm, 9th.
Because:
1) Crusade
2) the BS of constant updates, balance tweaks, etc is finished.
3) nearly every model I own has 9e rules & can be fielded as what it was intended to be.
4) The Detachment system - wether from the rulebook or AoO.

The edition numbers have all pretty much melded together for me - but it was the one with Demi Companies or two for a full company -

I really like the idea of a full company coming down from their strike cruiser and fighting the battle. I wish they started all their edition points balancing by saying 2,000 points is a full, average SM Company with reasonable support from the Armory, Librarium etc. - and then balancing the other armied around that with their 2,000 points per army.

Had the most fun from 3rd to the end of 5th edition.

I did vote for 3rd though, as that was the peak for me in regards to additional (great) fluff content in WD with wonky rules that seldomly were any good on the table.

Interesting spread of responses so far, thank you all for your input.

You might want to give "onepages rules grimdark future" a quick google.

Aside from that I'd say 3rd/4th edition, because that's when you could build your own hive fleet/chapter/whatever. There were even some imperial armor(?) rules for building custom creatures, up to and including murderous plantlife.

Edit: I don't remember much regarding how balanced those early editions/codexes were though

I haven't played enough of 10th yet to decide whether it's better than 9th. 10th fixes many of the big problems that 9th had, and the game itself is much more fun. The indexes have some pretty glaring big issues though.

9th brought regular dataslates, crusade, official campaigns and boarding action, so despite the bloat and jungle of stratagems it wins against 5th edition, my third choice, by a landslide.

I'd also like to pick and choose pieces of some others Mostly 2nd Ed -

2nd Edition/Fantasy Psychology Rules were fun and added a dimension more than Just add more S/T/W/Attacks/Armor/Invuln to the big bad's.

Other than D6 - especially vs Armor Value that could range from the 20's to what was it the 40s?

4th edition.

Genuinely felt like playing in the universe aside from some glaring flaws....

... But rather than incrementally iterating on those flaws, 5th edition threw out a bunch of stuff and added a bunch of random stuff, and then the random "throw out the good ideas and add bad ones" escalated until we are here today.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
4th edition.

Genuinely felt like playing in the universe aside from some glaring flaws....

... But rather than incrementally iterating on those flaws, 5th edition threw out a bunch of stuff and added a bunch of random stuff, and then the random "throw out the good ideas and add bad ones" escalated until we are here today.

More like throw out the good design team and replace them with drones. early 5th was when everybody in the old guard started leaving the company.

We solved that problem by melding the good stuff from 3rd and 4th to 5th but also not using the bad ones from those earlier editions that 5th actually did fix.

I played every edition and it is a toss up between 4th and 5th edition. My memory gets a bit hazy, but I recall having my best play experiences with those two.

7th was, by far, my worst edition experience.

4th edition for me. Fixed most of the assault/combat phase issues with 3rd, best era for codexes (3.5-4th), had the best terrain rules, and did not have the TLOS and wound allocation nonsense from 5th.

Some simple house rules like not allowing Eldar skimmer defensive upgrades and changing Rending weapons to rend on Wound rolls instead of Hit rolls can solve the most glaring issues of 4th edition.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
4th edition.

Genuinely felt like playing in the universe aside from some glaring flaws....

... But rather than incrementally iterating on those flaws, 5th edition threw out a bunch of stuff and added a bunch of random stuff, and then the random "throw out the good ideas and add bad ones" escalated until we are here today.

I feel the same.

The wording in 4th was terrible and required dozens of pages of FAQ (which GW at the times refused to even do and we had to make fan FAQs) but the mechanics themselves were the best they've ever been and the factions that were lucky enough to get a Codex during this brief window were the most characterful and flexible of all time as well.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
The wording in 4th was terrible and required dozens of pages of FAQ (which GW at the times refused to even do and we had to make fan FAQs) but the mechanics themselves were the best they've ever been

IIRC a warlord titan (size 4+) standing on a hill (size 3) could not shoot a target standing behind a area of low rubble (size 2) ... unless it stepped down off the hill first :p (or so the old 4e FAQ would suggest).

I get what they were trying to do with the 5e rules though. In 4e there were so many shenanigans relating to blocking your own line of sight, placing models at precise distances (being able to accurately eyeball range was a cheat code), and of course the disconnect between 4e line of sight being 'true' line of sight for cover but abstract line of sight for area cover.

Though they overcooked it with the 5e change trying to rework the whole mixed armour/characters in units rules from 4e into something... else.

The big issue we ran into with 4th ed size categories was mostly by people trying to cheat, or misunderstanding how they worked with vehicles.

The size class of a vehicle was for the player to know what size piece of area terrain could actually hide the vehicle. page 20 of the rules designated TLOS when trying to see past a vehicles hull. some players understood it to be size 3 and "infinitely tall". like a stand of forest.


Since Andy Chambers had a hand in writing the 3d terrain rules for DUST he included the 4th ed rules where area terrain blocked LOS and the unit had to be inside it and within a certain distance of the edge to shoot out.

Without the reaction mechanic in DUST i do not actually experience any problems with 5th ed 40K terrain rules. we just include various levels of area terrain for movement restrictions and hard covers saves along with large solid LOS blocking terrain to keep the table interesting.

 filbert wrote:
I'm sure I have made one of these posts before in the past but I guess come a new edition, a new poll to gauge responses....

...So at this point, I can either jump to the new edition or I can play whatever edition I want to - the only downside being that the further one goes back in time, edition-wise, the more my model collection gets invalidated, as all these shiny new models no longer have rules....

... Full disclosure - all my games are played at home against my son so no need for competitively balanced rules or anything like that; I am purely looking for the enjoyment factor, ease of use, slick rules writing and all that good stuff.

Don't go back, go better. If your priorities are slick rules writing and not having your army invalidated, and you don't have to worry about finding outside opponents, switch to Grimdark Future. Every 40k unit is covered, the online army builder is fantastic and the rules are free. Then you can draw you fluff from whatever version suits you.

My son and I have been enjoying the heck out of this combo.

I went with 8th. Specifically, that pre-marines-getting-doctrines period of 8th. 8th was never perfect, but it was frequently "good except for that one overpowered thing you should probably refrain from taking."

It was an experimental edition with lots of room for improvement, sure. But if you avoided the known problem combos, you could have a close game using a wide variety of units with the freedom to mix in allies to represent a lot of fluffy lists.

9ths' base rules were an improvement over 8ths, but the layers up on layers of submechanics combined with the 7+ mission objectives to track each game made actually playing kind of exhausting.

RAPID FIRE NOTES ON OTHER EDITIONS:
7th - Started okay, but formations and power creep made the end result really absurd. Late 7th is definitely the silliest version of 40k I've played. Also, invisibility was just game breaking.

6th - Just way too much random rolling and bookkeeping. Things like attaching special rules to objectives and giving warlords traits were fun ideas that were spoiled by making them random.

5th - My first edition. Parking lots for days. Bad times if you want to play anything other than vehicles. They also only let troops score that edition which meant you were in for a bad time if your troops weren't durable or cheap.

3rd and 4th - Have books for them. Never played. I suspect these would be my favorite editions if I ever game them a shot. My impression is that they leaned into smaller game sizes (what we'd think of as being about 1000-1500 points now) with strong unit customization (even if GW didn't sell models for all the options you could take).

2nd - Neat. Too whacky rules to keep track of for my taste, but neat.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

6th - Just way too much random rolling and bookkeeping. Things like attaching special rules to objectives and giving warlords traits were fun ideas that were spoiled by making them random.

Ohh, I forgot about that! Yeah that was the edition I took Sicarius in every game, partially because it meant I had a fixed Warlord trait.

Probably 4th, or a "best of" amalgam of 4th and 5th.

I would have loved to see how those editions would have turned out if the designers of that time had been allowed to make updates, revisions, and points adjustments with the same frequency as the 9th/10th updates. The biggest problems with those earlier editions is that very little was ever fixed when it proved broken.

4th was the last edition that felt to me like it was still trying to be a wargame and not the Codex writers doing fanfic one-upmanship. There were a couple of changes in 5e that helped, but 5e was also a big slash-and-burn of non-current-plastic models, and a big push away from list-building choice towards bloat, and the beginning of the push to sell big centerpiece models over making the game work.

 Insectum7 wrote:
4th ed was the best. 3.5 Codexes and 4th codexes were the peak of modularity and customization.

5th ed brought on hyper-TLOS, major high AP proliferation, terrible wound-tracking mechanics, and parking lot deployments.

^^^^This. Also, Chaos 3.5....yummmm.

But HH 2.0 has supplanted even that because: Best. Night Lords. Rules. Ever.

7th Edition. That is purely nostalgia talking-I started in 7th.

Though Horus Heresy is something I'd like to get into, or older editions of 40k. 8th and 9th weren't terrible, but 10th is just... Blech.