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.

4th edition, as the core rules were good enough and it includes my favorite terrain and scenario rules out of any edition of 40K. 5th was fine, but the codices made it a little messy.

While 7th edition was not great rules-wise it's probably the most fun I had in any edition, as I mostly played with a small group of friends and our collective vision allowed us to make the most out of the edition's flexibility and avoid anything annoying or abusive. I would occasionally attend tournaments (or even grand tournaments), resigned to having one terrible game and hoping to have enough fun my other games to balance it out.

I want 8th, with vertical engagement range and 10th edition terrain, Detachments and Stratagems. I don't love 8th or 9th enough to go back, but 8th wins out so far. Hopefully 10th becomes my favourite, 2 index games is too little to tell. No experience prior to 5th or with HH. Not a fan of 1page40k, it misses the 40k flavour in favour of making the cleanest possible ruleset that is also legal.

Early 5th ed.

Best of both worlds with the 4th ed Codexes, and the 5th ed rules. Mid 5th ed was decent too, until Cruddace and Ward completely fethed it up

I played in three 8th, 9th and 10th. And out of the them 9th was the most fun. 8th was horrible, 10th is meh, because in order to play I have to do a milion things and my army still hits like a wet noodle.

8th edition indexes.

I've only played a little over the years (RT, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 8th), but 8th was just fast enough with small armies (1K points) that I could stomach it.

I wish I hadn't built up such huge armies of models. It takes an afternoon for me to put together a roster & dig through my models to set up, four hours to play and then the evening putting things back. And that doesn't count the hours I've spent assembling and painting beforehand.

8th Edition, though I didn't feel like that when I actually played 8th Edition It's just that 9th edition refinements didn't really work out and the game became far too lethal.
8th was a huge improvement to the bloated system I got to know when I started the game in 5th. CC for example was vastly improved because it included actual decisions and a wider spread of WS than before (in 5th to 7th you always hit on 3 or 4, no matter there were 10 different WS). All of the vehicle rules had become useless the moment hull points were introced. Terrain and morale were the big problems in 8th, though Cities of Death improved the former a bit.
But what I really liked about 8th was that GW gave you the feeling that they're actually listening to player Feedback. There were Betarules, errata, designer's commentary and so on. It also didn't feel as tournament focused like 9th but was more of a sandbox. Again, 9th could have been an improvement, but it started with a points revision out of nowhere when it could have been built on 8th foundation and went downhill from there.

I voted 2nd. But I need to caveat that.

It wasn’t just the system. It was that time in my life. Those odd years between school exams and Proper Adulthood. Where you have lots of time, little else to do (I’m 16 yeah, but I cannot drink in pubs*) and with even a part time job more money than you’ve ever had and the lowest overheads you’ll ever have.

Yes it was clunky. No it didn’t scale terribly well. But….we had bugger all else to do!

And it was pre-internet, so our opinions were our own. Nobody reading something by Johnny Ten Thousand Posts trying to pass second hand opinion off as wisdom.

Just genuine halcyon days of life.

My least favourite? 8th and 9th. Not in a grumpy Grognard way. Just….by that point I was so out of the loop, stratagems played such an important part and were so scattered across different books, I found it impenetrable.

Here's my list:

6th - started fairly early during the edition. I spent most of it figuring out the game in general. I was annoyed by flyers, and monsters being vastly superior to vehicles, but it was playable for the most part.

7th - hated it. The introduction of Destroyer weapons and formations on top of all the broken stuff from 6th rendered it horrible, and it almost made me quit WH40k.

8th - liked it. It was a much welcome improvement and change from the previous two. Sure, it was rough around the edges, but it was enjoyable and in retrospect, my favourite one so far.

9th - started well as a refinement of 8th, but became overwhelming because of all the chapter tactics and warlord traits and relics and stratagems and stratagems and even more stratagems. Didn't get to play it much, but it could've been even better than 8th without all the bloat.

10th - have yet to play a game. Seems okay, but I really hope we'll see some hotfixes and the return of granular points for upgrades and additional equipment. Cautiously optimistic for now.

9th, if only because I consider the 9th Ed Tyranid codex the best Tyranid codex.

A.T. wrote:

 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.

Again. For the Nth time. This was ONLY and ONLY for area terrain. 40k had used TLOS since day 1 and it suddenly becoming a thing in 5th edition is a myth perpetuated by the internet.

3rd ed. Rulebook page 36- "Sometimes it may be hard to tell if a LOS is blocked or , so players must stoop over the table for a "model's eye view". This is the best way to see if LOS exists...
Enemy models and all vehicles, friend or foe, do block a unit's LOS if they are in the way, just like buildings and other terrain. enemy models will block the LOS to other models up to twice their height."

2nd ed. rulebook page 26- "However in some cases it will be difficult to tell if a LOS is blocked or not, and players must stoop over the table for a model's eye view. This is always the best way to determine if LOS exists- some players even use small periscopes or mirrors to check the views from their models!..."

TLOS. Pre 5th. Waddya know?

 Tyran wrote:
9th, if only because I consider the 9th Ed Tyranid codex the best Tyranid codex.

I guess you never played with the Phil Kelly 4th ed Codex?

2nd 40K:

- Overwatch with full BS.
- Hiding mechanic.
- Dedicated psychic phase.
- Wargear cards.
- Low amount of models needed.
- Persistent weapon effects on table (e.g. smoke grenades) or on models (e.g. burning, blinded, etc.).
- Each vehicles came with a specific damage table.
- WHFB Chaos army could be fielded in this edition.

Result: A ton of fun with wacky Hollywood explosions.

3rd addition because of balance. I'd also like to caveat that 3rd Edition playing the codexes inside the rulebook is the most balanced 40K you'll ever play in your life.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I voted 2nd. But I need to caveat that.

It wasn’t just the system. It was that time in my life. Those odd years between school exams and Proper Adulthood. Where you have lots of time, little else to do (I’m 16 yeah, but I cannot drink in pubs*) and with even a part time job more money than you’ve ever had and the lowest overheads you’ll ever have.

Yes it was clunky. No it didn’t scale terribly well. But….we had bugger all else to do!

And it was pre-internet, so our opinions were our own. Nobody reading something by Johnny Ten Thousand Posts trying to pass second hand opinion off as wisdom.

Just genuine halcyon days of life.

My least favourite? 8th and 9th. Not in a grumpy Grognard way. Just….by that point I was so out of the loop, stratagems played such an important part and were so scattered across different books, I found it impenetrable.

2nd here too, for a lot of the same reasons, as it sounds like the Dok & I are of similar vintage.. RT at the tail end was where I started but it was practically unplayable in the real world. Battle Manual fixed a lot of this stuff but it needed tidying and 2nd did that... it was what I played right the way up to discovering girls...

8th & 9th Jim & I gave a go but the morale rules always felt a bit weird. Haven't tried 10th yet but looking forward to giving it a shot and seeing how my Blood Angels fare against Hive Fleet Imprudens...

 Grimtuff wrote:

A.T. wrote:

 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.

Again. For the Nth time. This was ONLY and ONLY for area terrain. 40k had used TLOS since day 1 and it suddenly becoming a thing in 5th edition is a myth perpetuated by the internet.

3rd ed. Rulebook page 36- "Sometimes it may be hard to tell if a LOS is blocked or , so players must stoop over the table for a "model's eye view". This is the best way to see if LOS exists...
Enemy models and all vehicles, friend or foe, do block a unit's LOS if they are in the way, just like buildings and other terrain. enemy models will block the LOS to other models up to twice their height."

2nd ed. rulebook page 26- "However in some cases it will be difficult to tell if a LOS is blocked or not, and players must stoop over the table for a model's eye view. This is always the best way to determine if LOS exists- some players even use small periscopes or mirrors to check the views from their models!..."

TLOS. Pre 5th. Waddya know?

5th added the "True" to LOS when its rules punched through all those forests, ruins (and height X terrain) in what has to be one of the absolute dumbest moves ever. It was essentially "if you can see it, you can shoot it". Hence the "true".

But it made for awful battlefields where one could shoot practically anywhere.

nemesis464 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
9th, if only because I consider the 9th Ed Tyranid codex the best Tyranid codex.

I guess you never played with the Phil Kelly 4th ed Codex?

Kill Phil Kellt 4th ed Codex didn't had a Tyrannofex that could one-shot a Land Raider from the other side of the table.

I gravitate more towards the shooty end of the Tyranid roster (Tyrannofexes, Exocrines, Zoanthropes, Hive Guard, Biovores, whatever I can put a venom cannon) and the 4th ed codex was bad at building that kind of Tyranid swarm (plus like half of the above didn't exist in 4th).

Moreover I really liked how the 9th ed made synapse an actual web by allowing to chain buffs through synaptic link.

 Tyran wrote:

nemesis464 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
9th, if only because I consider the 9th Ed Tyranid codex the best Tyranid codex.

I guess you never played with the Phil Kelly 4th ed Codex?

Kill Phil Kellt 4th ed Codex didn't had a Tyrannofex that could one-shot a Land Raider from the other side of the table.

I gravitate more towards the shooty end of the Tyranid roster (Tyrannofexes, Exocrines, Zoanthropes, Hive Guard, Biovores, whatever I can put a venom cannon) and the 4th ed codex was bad at building that kind of Tyranid swarm (plus like half of the above didn't exist in 4th).

Moreover I really liked how the 9th ed made synapse an actual web by allowing to chain buffs through synaptic link.

?

The most effective unit in the 4th edition Tyranid book was the "gunfex" (a Carnifex with a VC and BS). The Hive Tyrant version was also powerful. And I think that was also the era of the 113 point "dakkafex" with devourers (and the corresponding dakkatyrant build).

Tyranids have only had 3 good Codices: 2nd Edition, the 4th Ed one that birthed Nidzilla, and the 9th Ed one.

As for which edition. I think I voted 3rd? Third is certainly the one I had the most fun with (once the Trial Assault Rules were in place). Certainly had the most freedom with armies and choice (and not just because of the 3.5 Chaos Codex). The 3.5 Guard Codex was one of the most fun things in the world to play with. We had Craftworld Eldar, a million Marine Chapters, and the Tau were at their absolute worst (once defeated a Tau army with a single Jump Pack Chaplain!). We skipped out on 4th not long after it began, and tried 5th for a bit but gave up. Tried to get into 6th, but by the time I had opened the rulebook 7th was out. Played enough 7th to know that I never wanted to touch it again. Played 8th just as it was about to die. Pandemic prevented much 9th play... and now we're here at 10th. 2nd Ed was where I started, and I love that game, but it didn't work as a wargame.

So my fav version of 40k is 1st Edition Necromuda, as that took 2nd Ed's ruleset and applied it to a game where it was basically perfect.

 Tyran wrote:

Kill Phil Kellt 4th ed Codex didn't had a Tyrannofex that could one-shot a Land Raider from the other side of the table.

Funnily enough an equal points amount of Zoanthopes in 4th ed had a much better chance of 1-shotting a Land Raider than a Tyrannofex did in 9th ed, and the 2x venom cannon Carnifex has basically the same odds as the Tyrannofex.

nemesis464 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

Kill Phil Kellt 4th ed Codex didn't had a Tyrannofex that could one-shot a Land Raider from the other side of the table.

Funnily enough an equal points amount of Zoanthopes in 4th ed had a much better chance of 1-shotting a Land Raider than a Tyrannofex did in 9th ed, and the 2x venom cannon Carnifex has basically the same odds as the Tyrannofex.

I don't think 2x venom cannons was a legal build. At best you had a S9 cannon and a S8 strangler, which could both hurt a Land Raider (something we struggled with).

 Altruizine wrote:

nemesis464 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

Kill Phil Kellt 4th ed Codex didn't had a Tyrannofex that could one-shot a Land Raider from the other side of the table.

Funnily enough an equal points amount of Zoanthopes in 4th ed had a much better chance of 1-shotting a Land Raider than a Tyrannofex did in 9th ed, and the 2x venom cannon Carnifex has basically the same odds as the Tyrannofex.

I don't think 2x venom cannons was a legal build. At best you had a S9 cannon and a S8 strangler, which could both hurt a Land Raider (something we struggled with).

It was, it’s even listed as one of the ‘example builds’ on the unit entry. The venom cannon was also strength S+2, so 4x S10 shots.

 Altruizine wrote:

The most effective unit in the 4th edition Tyranid book was the "gunfex" (a Carnifex with a VC and BS). The Hive Tyrant version was also powerful. And I think that was also the era of the 113 point "dakkafex" with devourers (and the corresponding dakkatyrant build).

And said "most effective unit in the 4th edition" couldn't ignore basic Marine armor, its VC could only glance non-open topped tanks and the BS being S8 also didn't fare that much better.
Also hitting on 4+, because GW was allergic to giving Tyranids anything better than BS 3 outside of Hive Tyrants and Zoanthropes (and later Hive Guard).

A 9th edition Tyrannofex gives a much better image just by the fact that hits on 3+, and its attacks will punch through pretty much anything that isn't an invulnerable save.

nemesis464 wrote:

It was, it’s even listed as one of the ‘example builds’ on the unit entry. The venom cannon was also strength S+2, so 4x S10 shots.

It was 2 shots twin-linked, because Tyranids treated having two of the same gun as twin-linked.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


So my fav version of 40k is 1st Edition Necromuda, as that took 2nd Ed's ruleset and applied it to a game where it was basically perfect.

Couldn't agree more. Even after all those years and many, many "advances" in game design, I still enjoy original Necro far more than Newcro and many other "streamlined&fast paced" AA games.

 Strg Alt wrote:
2nd 40K:

- Overwatch with full BS.

2nd Ed Overwatch was the best not (necessarily) because it was full BS, but because it was - I reserve the right to delay my shooting until your movement phase like a normal person would because I know you're just around that corner.

You didn't get more shooting that had to be nerfed into the ground that you might not even be able to use because they were out of sight before and after moving. You could just say - pause: I'm shooting my shot. (Overwatch).

 Tyran wrote:


It was 2 shots twin-linked, because Tyranids treated having two of the same gun as twin-linked.

Oh yeah. Still, the odds aren’t that dissimilar, it’s 12.5% vs roughly 15%.

And you could almost get 2 single venom Carnifexes for the points cost of a Tyrannofex

nemesis464 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:


It was 2 shots twin-linked, because Tyranids treated having two of the same gun as twin-linked.

Oh yeah. Still, the odds aren’t that dissimilar, it’s 12.5% vs roughly 15%.

And you could almost get 2 single venom Carnifexes for the points cost of a Tyrannofex

The 9th ed Tyrannofex has the advantage that its chances increases better with numbers, 2 have a 50% chance, 3 almost have 80%.
And of course the 9th codex can further buff them with extra AP, re-rolls, etc. (Admittedly part of the reason 9th was a shitshow in terms of lethality).

Meanwhile 4th ed gunfexes only go as high as 37.5% with 3.

nou wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


So my fav version of 40k is 1st Edition Necromuda, as that took 2nd Ed's ruleset and applied it to a game where it was basically perfect.

Couldn't agree more. Even after all those years and many, many "advances" in game design, I still enjoy original Necro far more than Newcro and many other "streamlined&fast paced" AA games.

I'd agree with this. Classic Necromunda is fantastic and the best possible use of early 40k mechanics.

I will say that the "Necromunda Community Edition" on Yaktribe does a phenomenal job of cleaning up a few of the game's weak spots while changing nothing that made the game great. I'd play it anytime.

 Tyran wrote:

 Altruizine wrote:

The most effective unit in the 4th edition Tyranid book was the "gunfex" (a Carnifex with a VC and BS). The Hive Tyrant version was also powerful. And I think that was also the era of the 113 point "dakkafex" with devourers (and the corresponding dakkatyrant build).

And said "most effective unit in the 4th edition" couldn't ignore basic Marine armor, its VC could only glance non-open topped tanks and the BS being S8 also didn't fare that much better.
Also hitting on 4+, because GW was allergic to giving Tyranids anything better than BS 3 outside of Hive Tyrants and Zoanthropes (and later Hive Guard).

A 9th edition Tyrannofex gives a much better image just by the fact that hits on 3+, and its attacks will punch through pretty much anything that isn't an invulnerable save.

I'm not comparing it to a T-fex, which did not exist, I'm pointing out that competitive 4th edition Tyranid armies leaned heavily on "the shooty end of the Tyranid roster" that you said you preferred. Even if I was comparing it to a T-fex the Marine armour comment seems misplaced. You shoot your rupture cannon at marines? Does any version of the rupture cannon to date do more damage to marines than a S8 large template would've in 4th?

Point, but I do shoot Exocrines and venom cannons at marines and being able to reduce or even ignore their armor feels better that trying to fish for failed 3+ saves (which was how the old dakkafex killed marines).

And admittedly my memories are tainted by the 5th edition damage table that made venom cannons worthless.

Insectum, as HBMC and i are big fans of the matter of TLOS is not as big as a problem as you think if you as a players bring enough terrain including stuff that is solid and blocks TLOS as well as looks like it belongs on the battlefield. with current real world experience with 5th ed. there is more than enough terrain that provides good cover and/or blocks LOS.

On the matter of the tyranid codex 4th is still the best, sure it doesn't have the newer bugs like mawlocks, trygons, and hive guard (those are easy enough to import into the codex), what it does have is useful and meaningful biomorph options, synapse that gives eternal warrior. and not stupid instinctive behavior rules that punish your army like making your carnifex run off the table like in the 5th ed codex. while it does limit long range anti-tank, you have more than enough close combat that does the job just as well if not better.

P.S. S10 venom cannons that glance land raiders on a 4+ are not worthless. the vehicle damage glance chart still does stuff.