The "best" edition of 40k?

Take a moment and ponder through all the editions of Warhammer 40k you've played.
Which was the most fun?
Forget the lore, model updates, and whatever waacgay deathstar list may have dominated a specific edition of 40k.
Which game had the most compelling rules, the most fun gameplay, and left you always wanting to come back to the table and start moving plastic dudes around again?
>I know this is completely subjective, and I want to hear the opinions of all the anons here.
For me I adored 5th edition. The rules were concise, the lethality wasn't too overstated, the vehicles felt tough without being lame (Hull Points in 6th made them feel like paper) the armies all got unique rules without too much rule bloat or bullshit, and overall the game was relatively simple to play without too much glancing back and forth between books and references.
List building was nice and easy, I could throw together a list with a pen and pad in 5 minutes because the formatting in the books was fantastic, and the quick reference for stats, powers and rules in the back made it REALLY easy to remember anything if it slipped my mind.
The way templates, facings, firing arcs all worked was concise and simple and felt cool and tactical. Being able to actually skirt around the fire of a sponson gun because of positioning was awesome and felt cool, then you got to attack a vehicle at the rear armor too and really pile on the hurt.

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Huh. First logo reminds me of AD&D2e but second reminds me of AD&D1e. Cool.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      First logo reminds me of cool old school packaging art. Second on puritan miniature box design.

  2. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    5th edition sucks due to target priority. 4th is best.

  3. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Its the edition you started with

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      This. I started in 5th and have great feels for that era, especially lore. I did really enjoy 9th's gameplay though.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Necrons and GK kinda soured 5e, but the rules were overall pretty good.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Its the edition you started with
      >durr, it's all subjective, don't be so negative!
      I started with 9th. 4th seems the best to me, though 2nd is also good for a smaller game. Decline is real, and there is very little talent remaining at GW.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        4th was better than 3rd, in that it adopted the improved close combat rules, but still has all the dumb oversimplifications from 3rd edition so it's far from perfect.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Started with 7th. Pref 5th or 9th pre codexes.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Maybe, but I feel like shit really started going off the rails with 6th. I spent all 5th wanting just a little bit extra, and then 6th was like, "you want extra? WHY NOT HAVE EVERYTHING!??!?" And it never got any better. So maybe what is the best just happens to coincidentally be the edition I started with.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, right. In 4th and 5th I dreamed about allying IG with SM or CSM (for that LatD feel) and then fricking taudar happened.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Started with 2nd. Hated 2nd. 3.5/4 was good.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      I'm a 9th edition newbie since Indomitus and I've only seen the balance become more and more of a clownshoe circus to where I'm convinced that GW cannot and doesn't have any incentive to writing reasonable rules for either individual Codexes or the health of the game at large. My interest is mostly in collecting and painting but I don't doubt that there had to have been better showings than what this pathetic effort turned out to be.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        you know how 10th is marketed as a more balanced and streamlined edition than 9th? would you believe that 9th was marketed the same? and 8th edition before that?

        And you are right: GW actually has an incentive for the latest and greatest release to be more powerful than the last, with more special rules. GW is a models company, not a rules company. Their leadership has stated this many times. The rules are a vehicle to sell models.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          I didn't know of that, but for 10th I'm mostly of the feeling that even if we do get dandy immediately playable and intuitive rules right from the start, GW will probably coast on that goodwill until they can inevitably betray trust when they release individual Codexes throughout the roadmap, somewhat completely invalidating the "lol we totally hear you a convenient digital future is here for YOU :*~~"

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >tfw starting with 10th
      Sometimes it pays to be a newbie

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      No.
      As an example my favorite WHFB edition wasn't the one I started with.
      Frick. Off.

  4. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    The only valid answers fall in the range of 3rd through 5th.

    My favourite is 5th, though I miss some of the customization features of 4th.

  5. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    3rd-4th was peak warhammer because it's the edition I started with so all other criticisms are invalid.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      The only valid answers fall in the range of 3rd through 5th.

      My favourite is 5th, though I miss some of the customization features of 4th.

      I agree with the hivemind. 3rd/4th when Tau and Necrons were introduced and Relic represented the rules was as good as it got.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      3rd is better, 4th fricked the skimmers.
      3rd with some 4th codex as optional rule, plus a few optional rules from later editions (like grenades and going to ground frankly, you don't need much more) is peak 40k.
      Pulse rifles must go S4 to, not 5.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        3rd edition chained melee charges are moronic.
        going to ground was moronic.
        Pulse weapons must be S5 and you are moronic for saying otherwise.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Most tau player answer ever.
          Chained charges happened because you are a cretin that can't deploy and gets butthurt because cannot just castle up like in moronic later editions.
          And guess what? Designers listened to you dumb fricks and experimental melee rules for 3rd exist.
          Going to ground is CIRCUMSTANTIAL, which is ok. Not that an idiot with your dumb opinions could get nuance. Used on an obective as an example still makes sense. And is another mechanic that helps simulate a battle, thing 3ed was more focused about with rules like pinning, indirect fire, crossfire and such.
          Pulse weapons were split in 2, the 18" and the 30" ones. Giving S5 to the 30" was a sign the team gave up to any restraint shown in the first part of the edition.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >3ed was more focused about with rules like pinning, indirect fire, crossfire and such.
            I don't know why GW has such a hard time implementing morale in mainline 40k

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Honestly, I'll take chained charges over Triptide or Basilisk castles in a corner of the board.

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              Ah yes, the Riptide. God 6th was such a shitshow. 2+ 3++ with tau players defending this bullshit.
              Also 3rd ed and IIRC 4th had 0-1. 0-1 and 0-2 choices were great because they allowed the designer space for units that were useful or even pivotal but avoided them being spammed.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                I get that it's simpler, but a lot of what tends to make units OP is multiplicative synergy, 2 being better than 1, and 3 being more than 3x better than 1.

                Rule of Three just limits your balance levers more than making some units 0-1, or 0-2. Certainly less annoying than points changes in balance patch erratas.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Honestly, my problem is less the Triptide than the uninteractivity of the "castle in the corner and win on kill points" style of play. 9e's objective focus was an improvement from 8e.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            This is a no games answer, keep your theory hammer for you.
            If you castle with Tau in 3rd and 4th you are going to loose hard, drop pods are going to violate you, and you are not going to score objectives.
            Firewarriors have S5 because they don't have special guns, no broken LasPlas, no fussion, no plasma, no flamer, no missile launcher, nothing. If you think that S5 is better than having any of that you have clearly not played enough.
            Firewarriors are expensive and made of paper, if they are in the open without a transport they are good as dead, if they are in a transport they are going to shoot at 30cm most of the time, so yes you are a moron if that is an issue. In those editions tau are MOBILE and can shoot and maneuver around the map. Other armyes can easily outshoot Tau in static games, marines, eldar, guard, even tyranids can outshoot tau.
            Chained charges are moronic because they brake the game, and nobody wants to get close to a melee unit, that goes against maneuvering and getting closer to each other units, I killed 5 small marine squads and almost a terminator squad with farsight in a single turn, that's just moronic, specially if you consider that drop pods and genestealers exist.
            Going to ground was moronic because there are units that increase their cover save, and it was exploitable as frick.
            You should try to play the game again because you clearly lack experience.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Pulse guns are an issue? First time I hear that because back then everyone used kroot as the superior and cheaper infantry unless going with a full mechanized list. And that was not particularly optimal, eldar did that far better.

  6. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    I started 40K pretty late, at the turn between 6th and 7th edition, but the people I played with had been players for much longer than I was. I think I liked 6th ed best, but I've heard mostly good things about 5th. Anything before 4th seems like the wild west era in terms of rules, but some more experienced anons will have a better opinion on such things.

  7. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    I started in 4th and enjoyed it and loved playjng HEUG games of apocalypse in 5-7th (Ive only tried 8th once and hated the morale mechanic and strategum spam and never came back). But my group is playing 2nd edition with new models and its by far the most fun I've had due to the crazy shit and in depth customisation possible in the game. None of us are WAACgays though so that might feed into it as 2nd can get broken easily.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      I've always wanted to try 2e but get confused trying to look into all the rules. Is there a concise guide or updated ruleset that's formatted easier for morons like myself?

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Theres 'battlebible' but it changes a few things for the worse (I peronally hate wargear card limits) so youre probably better off watching a game on youtube or something. Be mindful that the game DOES NOT work with WAAC players and you kind of need to houserule stuff like
        >no viruas grenades
        >no vortex grenades
        >remove the stopping at 8 inches away (melee doesnt work otherwise)
        etc.

  8. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    1e
    CAPTCHA: TSR(4gp)

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      You are right

  9. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    4e. I've always considered making a heartbreaker mixing 4e and MESBG (alternating phases, MWF) and a few bits from other games like Epic Armageddon and Flames of War.

  10. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    2nd edition was the most fun, becuase each month white dwarf was dropping new units for new armies never seen before. The battle reports were amazing.

    There was horror and it was goofy (not grim dark yet)

    Wargear cards were really cool for customising characters and vehicles, and you could really create a story around a character or even a tank.

    Frick polymorphene, Vortex grenades, warp spiders and genestealers.

  11. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Arks of Omen rules are good enough, but if I wanted to have a tank battle or the like I'd probably go back to 7th.

  12. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Started in 3rd, but 4th/5th were my personal favourite because they reintroduced goofy shit for the orks and chapter specific books for the Black Templars etc.
    Plus the Imperial Armour books and the campaigns were great.
    Not a massive fan of the current game with all the secondaries and shit, the amount of book-keeping pulls me right out of the game.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Multiwound models are a pain in a game with the model count. Not a fan of how 8e doubled down on it.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Preach brother preach. 5th ed codexes were too steriale for me so I dont remeber enjoying rules.

  13. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Rogue trader is it's own beast very much
    2nd edition is PEAK oldhammer, i adore it dearly
    3rd is the transitionary edition into midhammer
    4th is the beginning of midhammer, 40k really solidifies it's identity in a good way.
    it maintains this solid consistency all the way up until around the end of 7th edition, where it transitions into nuhammer era
    8th and onwards is nuhammer, where we are now.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      40k oldhammer is RT, anon
      that's how it's defined by the grogs that invented the term and manage the FB groups about it.
      2e is early middlehammer with its aesthetics.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        RT is old-oldhammer
        2nd-3rd edition is oldhammer
        4th-7 is middlehammer
        8th-present is modernhammer

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >3rd edition is oldhammer
          I thought the "2E is oldhammer" gays were obnoxious, this is just ridiculous.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >3rd edition is oldhammer
        I thought the "2E is oldhammer" gays were obnoxious, this is just ridiculous.

        RT is old-oldhammer
        2nd-3rd edition is oldhammer
        4th-7 is middlehammer
        8th-present is modernhammer

        frick those boomers deciding only RT is oldhammer, I declare any game system or edition that was released 2 or more decades ago from whenever the present date is to be 'old', so he's right, 2nd and 3rd fall into that. Those facebook grandpas are so set on 'oldhammer' only referring to what was old when they first named it in the 2000's and forgot that time continued to pass beyond that point.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          In terms of progress and change of rules paradigm, Rogue Trader -> late RT/2nd was a massive change. 2nd -> 3rd was equally as large a change. But the 3rd edition paradigm continued on until 7th edition, just iteratively growing on itself, so 8th-9th truly is actually the 4th real change of rules of 40k which is current until 10th is released later this year.
          In terms of setting, the only really different one is original Rogue Trader. By the time of late rogue trader, it already resembled the more modern game and until the Guilliman/Ynnari stuff they released, remained basically static, and the new stuff is just bolted on the end anyway.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Rules, fluff and style changed massively between 1st and 2nd to 3rd.

          You can see a lot of 3rd everywhere still, the drive for grimdarkness, limits on army formations, 1500 to 2000 pt standard, codex releases, etc.

          2nd was a giant rulebook with joke fluff and silly minis. You got human eldar hybrids, messy rules all over the place and overpowered joke items like vortex grenades. Was much less competitive too.

          Nuhammer fr 7th to 8th was a much smaller jump in comparison, and much less jarring.

          4th is the best edition because it was a refinement of 3rd, and everyone was overpowered. 5th was the nerf everything edition, 6th was reversing some nerfs while leaving others. 7th was the edition continued the imbalance to the extreme of overpowered crap (eldar, tau) and losers (ork, tyranids), 8th is Nuhammer reset of simplification, 9th is rule bloat of 8th. 10th is further simplification.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            In terms of progress and change of rules paradigm, Rogue Trader -> late RT/2nd was a massive change. 2nd -> 3rd was equally as large a change. But the 3rd edition paradigm continued on until 7th edition, just iteratively growing on itself, so 8th-9th truly is actually the 4th real change of rules of 40k which is current until 10th is released later this year.
            In terms of setting, the only really different one is original Rogue Trader. By the time of late rogue trader, it already resembled the more modern game and until the Guilliman/Ynnari stuff they released, remained basically static, and the new stuff is just bolted on the end anyway.

            yes I know the editions are different
            3rd is still old now
            if they wanted that distinction putting old in the name was stupid and they should have called it something else other than oldhammer

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              The "old" in oldhammer is as in "old-school" and was just drawing from the wider OSR movement in tabletop gaming. Yes, 3rd is objectively "old" but the design philosophy is not very far removed from 7th, hence the midhammer designation for both. These labels haven't been totally static either since 3rd and beyond used to be nu-hammer until 8th took the mantle - if anything, there needs to be a clear title for 2nd Ed (herohammer/redhammer) since it's clearly distinct from both RT and 3rd but tends to get lumped with one or the other depending on the individual.

  14. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    2nd edition - had the right balance of weird janky silliness with crunch. Third edition began the streamlining and simplification rot.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      I will say this in 3rd's favour; Black Book Lists Only gave me some of the most fun in that edition. They were a real breath of fresh air at the time compared to the intricacies of 2nd. I also appreciated the way Marines started to play a bit like the arrogant SOB's they were implied to be; they didn't take cover, why should they? 3+ strolling casually down the middle of the street, all but shouting "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough" like the terror troops they should be.
      My own answer would be 2nd, even though my Orks lost the lunacy of Waagh/EWG/FB. I did start Guard though, and they gave me some great memories at the time.

  15. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Gameplay wise? Probably 7th. Lore wise? 1st to 3rd. Silly lore, but recognizable enough to be what it is today. some cool shit like the chaos gods of order, without any "canon" constraints. That's why two Primarchs were left open a d why the "innumerable chapter" thing existed.

  16. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    As someone who started right at the beginning of 9th, 3rd-4th is by far my favorite. Mainly way I play is what some have termed as "GOAThammer", 5e core rules, and your pick of 3rd-3.5-4th codexes.covers basically every army but knights, admech, and votaan.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      There's a 3rd ed admech list made by Tim Huckelbery so it's fairly well put together and balanced for those eds, and knights can be approximated with the 3rd ed vehicle builder rules.
      Why do you prefer 5th core book over 4th?

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        No particular reason, just the one we had and it's worked fine enough for us. Though I have seem some use the 4th ed one online.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          fair, 3rd/4th/5th are alll pretty similar core books
          good call on the 3/3.5-4th dexes though, 5ths dexes are terrible.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah. There were some dud 4th ed dexes, but you can just go back. I.E. CSM. Just whichever one of them goes best with your army. Also, where can I find that admech list you mentioned? just in case we have an admech player swing by.

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              here you go

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            I prefer 4e's terrain and LOS rules.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >and knights can be approximated with the 3rd ed vehicle builder rules
        Shame these builder rules don't have anything on determining weapon arcs in a mechanically defined way.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          it's 3rd and 4th, the designers back then still thought anyone playing it would be reasonable and not moronic so probably also thought you'd decide on the weapon arcs yourself based on the range of motion the gun would have if it were real, not a difficullt thing to do.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            And never considered that, using their rules, the same gun in a fixed frontal mount and in a turret would cost the same, despite the performance differences.

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              If you're so concerned about minor fringe cases of not being able to face your front armour at one target while firing at a different one, make turrets cost slightly more. You're supposed to tweak and alter these rules yourself, don't fall into the modern consumer mindset of only using official rules as set in stone. If you're already using the vehicle design rules you're already off the codex compliant tracks and in homebrew country anyway. They're not something you'd use unless playing with friends or a club, and you can talk to those people like an adult and say "Hey I thought it would be better or more fun/balanced/cool if we did X with this"

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                That's theoretically how these things get balanced. First they're costed according the formula; then they get tweaked based on synergies and other things that get discovered in play.

  17. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    I remember being stuck with a 2nd ed codex and a FAQ print out for Wych Cults for decades

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      I think you'll find that's a 3rd edition codex. Just one of the early, shitty ones.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Honestly the amount of work my scourges with deep striking 4 splinter cannons and the one game where my wyches tied up a deathwing army with their 4+ invulns in CC more than makes up for lack of codex support well into 7th ed

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >lack of codex support well into 7th ed
          I mean, the 5th Ed Dark Eldar (after 12 years!) was absolutely great, not sure where you're getting 7th edition from for DE

  18. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    3rd was fun.

  19. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Didn't the 6th "edition" only last a few months?

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      No. 2 years, which was scandalously short at the time, but is tied shortest (with 7th).

      Truly, 7th edition was just "6.5" edition, in the same way that they basically re-wrote most of the game midway through 3rd Edition. Actually far less changed between 6th and 7th edition, than over the course of 3rd edition.

      7th edition didn't even have its own starter set (just a re-release of the 6th edition starter set). The only official place that even called it "7th" edition were the titles of the downloadable FAQs.

  20. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    4th. It sure had its share of issues, but to me that's when the game really found its groove. The customisation was awesome and added massive variety without the fricked up rules bloat of later editions.

  21. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    The best edition is whichever you played first. Because that will be when you were naive and before you realized 40k is a shit game.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      see:

      >Its the edition you started with
      >durr, it's all subjective, don't be so negative!
      I started with 9th. 4th seems the best to me, though 2nd is also good for a smaller game. Decline is real, and there is very little talent remaining at GW.

  22. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    They all suck

  23. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Started with 3rd played until late 5th, then jumped to better games.
    Best is 4th, I still play it from time to time. You can't chain charges like in 3rd and thats good. The codex are thematic and if you don't like them you can agree to use any 3rd edition book, scenario or codex. 4th also has the better imperial armour books.

    People don't remember but 5th was the start of the corporative GW.
    Flyers where introduced but had no place in the game, beyond broken codex books like grey knights, army size creep, power creep, nu necron lore, price spikes, the extra rules like run or generating better cover in exchange of doing nothing messed the game deeply, LOS changes where straight worse. 5th edition was a mess.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >People don't remember but 5th was the start of the corporative GW.
      Absolutely. 5th SW codex with Wolf Wolfborn on his thunderwolf, BA codex with bloodbloodblood everything, blood strike missiles, shitty SM flyer and scouts in the elite FOC slot. GK codex with... you know. SM codex with spiritual liege. Fricking nucrons. And do you remember who was responsible? Fricking MAT WARD, the Despoiler.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        It had been going that way for a while but 2005-2015 was definitely the peak of them being shit, mostly because of Tom Kirbys leadership. Storm of chaos was when I think people really started to notice and they just doubled down for the next 10 years or so.

        The end times felt like the last "frick you" from Kirby. Like "you c**ts b***hed at my company being buttholes for years so I'm just gonna break all your toys." GW are still absolute bastards but not to that extent, glad we're past it

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Like matt ward has his faults but I feel at times he was more the scapegoat for shitty management, like that whole theory that the SM codex that fellated the Ultramarines like a Vegas prostitute was actually meant to be the ultras codex but got changed at the last minute.
          He can write good stuff, he helped with writing on vermintide and battlefleet gothic but I think he needed a slap now and then when he would take ideas only he liked and forced them on the whole setting. That said, the PETA thing was hilarious

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Matt Ward FLUFF was meh and people overreacted.
            Matt Ward army books broke 2 different games.
            Reread this

            >5th was great
            5th was the period Matt Ward wrote BA, Necrons and GK, Cruddace the leafblower guard, and Phil Kelly the Spacewolf codex.
            The game never recovered from 5e.
            Ward proceeded to write the 7th edition Daemon codex for WHFB too, annihilating that game too along with the moron that wrote the Dark Elves, Gav Thorpe (the guy that assraped 40k chaos in 4th).

  24. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Started in 3.5, played through to 7th., 4th. still remains my favorite edition. It was actually a really balanced game if both players were using comp lists, so it baffles me those restrictions weren't just added to 5th. 4th. does have some problems, though:

    >rending
    All over the place, from Genestealers to Assault Cannons. There were reasons for it (like allowing Harlequins to destroy vehicles), but the solution should have been to add units into those specialized roles or increase the number of attacks/shots.
    >special weapons too cheap
    Probably where a lot of the problems in Fourth's balance comes from, especially when playing straight out of the codex. Lascannon and Plasma gun were only 22 points per Tactical Squad....yeah no shit 6x man LasPlas became the default for Space Marines. To continue this example Lascannons should have probably been 30 or 40 points for infantry, while keeping their costs on vehicles such as Predators. Now players have to be more thoughtful where they put their special weapons.
    >no movement stat
    You don't need "fleet of ___" if models have a movement stat with the option to run in the shooting phase. Speeds up the game since there's less dice rolling while making the difference between a Termagaunt and a Terminator more obvious. Same goes for vehicles.
    >fearless
    Made leadership not mean anything. Really there needed to be psychology like in Fantasy where there's a difference between panicking from casualties, being caught in the open by sniper fire, and seeing a Greater Demon of Khorne.
    1/?

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >high strength defensive weapons
      Eldar vehicles were at their strongest in this edition and were up there with Chaos Space Marines in terms of power because they dumped so many shots while maintaining their high speed. 5th. had an over-correction, IMO.
      >inconsistencies of what counts as a scoring unit
      T'au drones should obviously not be able to hold objectives. Razorbacks are borderline. But a Land Raider can't hold an objective because it's a dedicated transport? I like 10th.'s new unit strength stat that fixes this. You don't need to have any special rules. A Techmarine's servitor and drip pod both have "0," a grot may have "1," and a Baneblade has 50. No more need to calculate if a unit is half-strength, no more illogical scenarios, etc.

      Started in 3rd, but 4th/5th were my personal favourite because they reintroduced goofy shit for the orks and chapter specific books for the Black Templars etc.
      Plus the Imperial Armour books and the campaigns were great.
      Not a massive fan of the current game with all the secondaries and shit, the amount of book-keeping pulls me right out of the game.

      Feral Ork player here. Army list is busted as frick if you cheese, but I hate the removal of Boar Boyz and Nobs on boars. The new Beastsnaggaz are okay, buy we still don't have access to Warbosses on boars (hell, they took away bosses on bikes).

      Gameplay wise? Probably 7th. Lore wise? 1st to 3rd. Silly lore, but recognizable enough to be what it is today. some cool shit like the chaos gods of order, without any "canon" constraints. That's why two Primarchs were left open a d why the "innumerable chapter" thing existed.

      7th. I think had some solid rules that were plagued by soup lists, flyers, and formations. I think it would have been a better edition if they weren't trying to basically have Apocalypse jammed into normal ass normal games.

      Started with 3rd played until late 5th, then jumped to better games.
      Best is 4th, I still play it from time to time. You can't chain charges like in 3rd and thats good. The codex are thematic and if you don't like them you can agree to use any 3rd edition book, scenario or codex. 4th also has the better imperial armour books.

      People don't remember but 5th was the start of the corporative GW.
      Flyers where introduced but had no place in the game, beyond broken codex books like grey knights, army size creep, power creep, nu necron lore, price spikes, the extra rules like run or generating better cover in exchange of doing nothing messed the game deeply, LOS changes where straight worse. 5th edition was a mess.

      I didn't like any of the changes in 5th. except running (which was only needed because they wouldn't give units movement stats). If I remember right, they nerfed defensive weapons on vehicles from strength 6 to 4. There needed to be a nerf, but it should have been strength 5 or less counts as defensive. You don't get Falcon/Wave Serpent spam, but you keep a lot of vehicle heavy weapons viable.
      2/2

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I like 10th.'s new unit strength stat that fixes this.
        Yeah, giving everything their own obsec value was definitely a good move.

        >You don't need "fleet of ___" if models have a movement stat with the option to run in the shooting phase. Speeds up the game since there's less dice rolling while making the difference between a Termagaunt and a Terminator more obvious. Same goes for vehicles.
        It really was a baffling decision.

        >Made leadership not mean anything. Really there needed to be psychology like in Fantasy where there's a difference between panicking from casualties, being caught in the open by sniper fire, and seeing a Greater Demon of Khorne.
        Psychology has always been a weakpoint of mainlike 40k. I liked how Epic handled it.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        The troops that needed to run already could do that in 4th. Running for everyone in 5th was a mistake.

  25. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Epic, and it's not close.

  26. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    5th edition. It was the edition I started with and I didn't really have time for the hobby anymore around the time 6th came out. I'm only just getting back into it now.
    That makes it objectively the best edition. Definitely has nothing to do with nostalgia.

  27. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    3rd is what got me into the hobby and it will be forever special to me.

  28. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    I have played many editions, this is my take.

    1st is a favourite because it was the first and had so many options and ideas (for games, mutations and background) especially when you included all the articles in White Dwarf. It was more of a wild 'do what you like with whatever you have' RPG/wargame that encouraged players to use their imagination to create models and games.

    2nd seemed a bit childish but fun (garish colours, huge gunbarrels, focus on mega heros winning each battle, etc), but really expanded on the figures and vehicles. It also had a lot of complimentary games - Necromunda, Spacehulk. etc.

    My favourite was 3rd though because the rulebook had ALL the stats for all the races and weapons in the back, meaning you could play the game just with the one rulebook. It was very player friendly as you didnt need to get a codex for your own armies and your oppenents to understand what the frick was happeneing from turn to turn. It also (at first) took a step away from the 2nd ed 'God powered Hero supported by a few chaff', reducing the power of the leaders and putting the emphasis on the troops. Now a squad of marines could easily take out a mega armoured warboss. It made the game a bit more tactical and realistic (if that's even possible, lol) There was also still an allowance for scratchbuilt units (White dwarf even had vehicle design rules, allowing you to use non GW units in GW games!)

    4th was basically a slightly tweaked and refined version of 3rd.

    5th was when the corporate driven Churn went into overdrive and squatted a lot of the previous 1-4th ed models and gear options from gameplay, as well as banning anything scratch built or Non-GW. They also started fricking around with base sizes. As I didnt fancy chopping up most of my collections ever new edition, just to make them 'codex complaint' or rebuying itterations of the same books over and over until the end of time, I have stuck with playing 3rd/4th ever since.

  29. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    9th edition has been the best so far for me, from a rules perspective. It plays great, but demands a lot from both players. But with two people who know their factions and know what they're doing, 9th ed as it currently is amazing. Close, tense games where everything acts largely as they're supposed to. Crusade is great too, a very nice and fleshed out campaign system.
    I've played 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th and 9th. Unlike most people, I don't have great memories of 4th and 5th. I remember an opponent screaming in my face because a Zoanthrope one-shot his Monolith. That wasn't fun at all. Not really the games fault, of course, he was autistic and crazy, but it's definitely tainted my view of it. And whenever I go back to read the rules, there are so many holes in them I find it hard to even get motivation to try and play them now. Kharn punches himself in the 3.5 codex.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >9th edition has been the best so far for me, from a rules perspective
      Shut the frick up you smooth chested young moron. God I hate young people.

  30. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Anons preferring 5e over 4e for other reasons than nostalgia, fricking explain yourselves!

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Everybody gets and updated codex.
      Plus afaik its basically identical ruleswise

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Both false

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Very convincing.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Everybody gets and updated codex.
            Thats not true.
            >Plus afaik its basically identical ruleswise
            That is also not true.
            Your statements are clearly false, why should I spend more time arguing at them if you are unable to check the codex books released during 5th.

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              Which armies where missing the new format codexes by 5th?

              As far as I can tell true line of sight, limitations to transports, guess weapons, ect. had all been codified. Can you mention any major changes between 4th and 5th that have a major effect on gameplay?

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Not that anon, but
                >Chaos, Orks, Eldar, Demons, Tau, Dark Angels, Black Templars, Nids, Catachans, Witch Hunters, Demon Hunters [though GK got a book and Sisters got a WD list]
                Even if you scratch variants, that still leaves you with Chaos, Eldar, Nids, Tau and Orks

                >TLOS
                Wasn't a thing in 4th Edition and fricked the game beyond belief.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Catachans were rolled into Imperial Guard. The witch/demon hunters being small parts of the Greyknights codex was odd. And the Sisters not getting a full release did suck, i grant that. But the rest did get codexes in the new format. Pic related.

                And thos 4th had model sizes, it still drew line of side to a model's body. But it did still use area terrain a in lot of instances.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                I was wrong on Nids, but that Dark Angels, CSM and Eldar book are 4th Edition.

                Model sizes and area terrain is exactly the point. 3rd and 4th edition were in no way TLOS.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Dude just stop lying, half of the codex books didn't had a 5th edition version, Tau didn't get a release and they where unplayable.
                Even factions with new codex books could have absolute random power levels, new need where shit and grey knight where the most broken faction in the history of the game.
                The rule changes like run, getting better saves in the open, vehicle changes, Los, flyers and other ruined the game.
                5th edition was a pile of shit.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                New nids*

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Holy shit finally someone who actually knows what they're talking about. I swear to god every time I see a moron on /tg/ talking about how 5th ed 40k was the best I want to punch them in the dick. 5th was the beginning of shithammer era. It was honestly the worst fricking garbage only outdone by 6th and 7th somehow getting even shittier, and the only reason I think anyone remembers it fondly is because they're fricking newbies who discovered 40k through Dawn of War video games and 5th was the first tabletop edition they played.

                It sucked BALLS compared to 4th in basically every conceivable way.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >they're fricking newbies who discovered 40k through Dawn of War video games
                that's probably most people on /tg/ tbh

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Based anon. Plus the codex writing as explained here

                >5th was great
                5th was the period Matt Ward wrote BA, Necrons and GK, Cruddace the leafblower guard, and Phil Kelly the Spacewolf codex.
                The game never recovered from 5e.
                Ward proceeded to write the 7th edition Daemon codex for WHFB too, annihilating that game too along with the moron that wrote the Dark Elves, Gav Thorpe (the guy that assraped 40k chaos in 4th).

                was cancerous.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >and grey knight where the most broken faction in the history of the game.
                I stopped playing towards the tail end of 5th, but weren't 5th necrons even stronger than greys? I certainly remember a lot of people whining that was the case.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                You forgot the deathstars.

                4th changes enough to make life shittier for most people (see as an example the comment about skimmers above, you are the fricking newbie clueless about 4ed eldar and tau) and gutted several codexes, the most infamous example is chaos. These two things alone make it detestable to many.

                Didn't 4th also fricked up cover? Or it was 5th again?

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You forgot the deathstars.
                Yes and that was exploitable as frick with wound allocation, just equip your dudes with different guns and suddenly you can spread the wounds as you like before killing anyone.
                Nob squad with Gaz and feel no pain for example, or ork bikes.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                3 of the books of that picture are 4th edition you moron.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      I like 5th more because despite the power scaling getting fricky it did introduce some really wild and unique rules in each army. Shit like Dark Eldar ripping characters out of units, shit like Njal having a table he rolls on to simulate a fricking walking hurricane, and the core rulebook psychic powers were really fun.
      I’m absolutely certain 4th is probably a better and more well designed and balanced game, but 5th has a lot of hype shit

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >and the core rulebook psychic powers were really fun.
        Pretty sure 5th didn't have core rulebook powers

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Tac Sergeants in terminator armor

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        That was never legal. Only exception to mixing armor saves like that were Iron Hands with Index Astartes.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          It's weird how IH have sergeants in terminator armor, chaplain-techmarines, companies that are basically small chapters by themselves, an elected, temporary chapter master...
          ...yet are considered Codex Compliant, because nobody really cares about them.
          Even though they are some of the few marines who actually behave like brutal remorseless killers rather than pure compassionate angels of mercy

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Pretty sure it was in 3rd.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's when Index Astartes was a thing. So it's what I mentioned, but the IA armies with special rules were not too common a sight. Most people were more interested in DIY chapters and color schemes back then from what I remember.

            4E Chapter traits

            Fair enough. I'd be lying if said I still knew all the chapter traits rules from the top of my head. I do seem to remember that there was an errata'd argument about this applying to sergeants or character models.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          4E Chapter traits

  31. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    lore and art: 2nd edition
    models: 2nd-4th
    rules for customization: 4th
    rules for running into things with your trukks as ork player: 5th

  32. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    mishmash of rules from pre datacards ed, iirc 5th and earlier

  33. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    I personally really liked late 3rd/early 4th. Good point in my life because still in high school, GW forums still existed, tons of free rules/guides on gw website, felt less netdecky, flyers/titans/superheavies weren’t a thing in regular games and the lore had a lot more mystery

  34. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    I started about midway through 5th edition and haven't played a game since 8th.i had the most fun playing 6th and 7th because that was when I was playing the most. Rules, editions. People complain online, they have fun when they are in person no matter how bloated the rules are. This edition stuff and having your enjoyment tied to a set of arbitrary rules is a huge waste of time and energy.

  35. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    the best edition is the one you homebrew

  36. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    I preffer mixing codexes from 3-4 ed with house rules on the fly to make game better for both of us. I want cool games with smace soldiers and not chess

  37. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    40k was more fun when the rulebooks still had hobby advice in them and the game was about having a good time with friends rather than WAAC tournament shit but the latest models every 2 weeks. 3rd through 7th got progressively worse overall, but there were some good things that came into the game as well it wasn't all bad I think. 8th was dogshit and 9th managed to be even worse. I have zero expectations for 10th and I don't know anyone who still plays actual 40k.

  38. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    This might be controversial, but there was a brief period of 8th after the loyal 32 were fixed but before the space marine supplements broke the game again where I remember the game being in a pretty good state

  39. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    5th was great but 4th was when I began playing and is still the most fondly remembered edition for me.
    I cannot believe how utterly dogshit 40k is now. Absolutely stunning.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >5th was great
      5th was the period Matt Ward wrote BA, Necrons and GK, Cruddace the leafblower guard, and Phil Kelly the Spacewolf codex.
      The game never recovered from 5e.
      Ward proceeded to write the 7th edition Daemon codex for WHFB too, annihilating that game too along with the moron that wrote the Dark Elves, Gav Thorpe (the guy that assraped 40k chaos in 4th).

  40. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why is 4e so fondly remembered?

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Codexes had armory and a million options for /yourdudes/ SM codex had trait system, IG codex had doctrines, Orks had Kult of Speed supplement, tau had fish of fury (kek) CSM codex was THE best CSM codex ever (Not only because of IW heavy support shenanigans). 13th company and LaTD had actual fricking rules, BT had actual fricking codex with 20-man footslogging squads... Shit was so unbelievably cash.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      3rd Edition was a massive change and a lot of people left during that time, leaving people that liked the new 40k and new recruits.
      4th Edition core rules is just 3rd Edition, but better and cleaned up in almost any way. Arguably, my only gripe with it is that it doesn't have minor psychic powers.
      Additionally, 4th Edition got to coast on the really fun 3.5 books for a while. Even if the power level varied massively between IG, Chaos, Craftworlds, Orks and Dark Eldar, they were still fun and fluffy to play. 4e also gave stellar and flavorful books to Marines, Nids and Tau. Only the twilight days really fricking sucked, when Orks and Eldar got books that were strong, but lacked any sort of flavor.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Codexes had armory and a million options for /yourdudes/ SM codex had trait system, IG codex had doctrines, Orks had Kult of Speed supplement, tau had fish of fury (kek) CSM codex was THE best CSM codex ever (Not only because of IW heavy support shenanigans). 13th company and LaTD had actual fricking rules, BT had actual fricking codex with 20-man footslogging squads... Shit was so unbelievably cash.

        It seems interesting that a lot of people, even people who started later, seem to think that 4e is one of the best in retrospect.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >4th Edition core rules is just 3rd Edition, but better and cleaned up in almost any way.
        I hate this meme with a passion.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          If you weren't such a newbie you would understand why people say this. It's basically correct. RT to 2nd, and 2nd to 3rd, were both complete overhauls/resets that obsoleted all the material to come before. 4th was completely compatible with 3rd and barely changed anything by comparison to those, and most of the rules changes it made had already been added to 3rd in Chapter Approved before it even launched, it just codified them into one rulebook.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            4th changes enough to make life shittier for most people (see as an example the comment about skimmers above, you are the fricking newbie clueless about 4ed eldar and tau) and gutted several codexes, the most infamous example is chaos. These two things alone make it detestable to many.

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              We aren't talking about codexes, just the core. 4th ed core was barely a change at all to 3rd. There were significant periods of time where people were playing 4th edition with the 3.5e Chaos dex.

              I played all of these editions, calm down moron.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                For the last fricking time.
                The changes to skimmers ALONE made fighting Eldar and Tau a chore.

  41. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    I started with 3, but 4 felt like a massive upgrade in every way. I do like that newer editions have brought back a lot of the cool shit from way back in the day, like knights and half the Ork units, but the game became fricking unplayable with the advent of stratagems, and turning vehicles into monsters and templates into die rolls was and continues to be gay.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >felt like a massive upgrade in every way.
      I see you never played with or against skimmers, or you weren't a chaos player.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I see you never played with or against skimmers
        You got me there.

        >or you weren't a chaos player.
        Maybe I have the editions wrong. Isn't the 4th Chaos Codex the one that has all the sweet legion rules and the lovely armoury? As I recall, 5th edition was the one where the only thing that made sense to run was dual Lash of Submission princes and plague marines for objective holding.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          3.5 Chaos had the legion stuff, 4e had nothing.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Oh.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Isn't the 4th Chaos Codex the one that has all the sweet legion rules and the lovely armoury?
          It was the 3.5 one used in the first part of 4th.
          Then the actual 4th happened.

  42. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    >too young during oldhammer
    >secondary during midhammer
    >finally start painting minis during nuhammer
    I have the worst fricking timing. At least I was there for Dawn of War.

  43. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    My guess is 1998-2020.
    It's probably woke today? Content removed or changed because it was "problematic"?

  44. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    2nd Edition. It's what I grew up with and provides the fondest memories. If someone asked me to play a game of 2nd Ed I'd be right on that.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Meh. For a mix of RPG and Wargame with very few models, I preferred Warzone 1e, warts and all.

  45. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    There is something how they used to write rules that tickles me silly.
    One thing looking back that was a bit "meh" is going back and forth between the war gear stat page and the unit to determine the stats of the weapon and how effective it is on the unit. Other than that, I would vastly prefer shit like this over what 8th/9th and 10th are churning out.

  46. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    The best and only edition of 40k was third edition. I shouldn't even have to explain why. Everything before 3rd was practice, everything after 3rd was ruining something that was already perfect just to sell a few more books.

  47. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    I played fantasy and ignored 40k till a pal and I convinced each other to try our favoured systems.
    So I’ve played 8th,9th and 4th ed 40k.

    I had much more fun with 4th, still planning to try 10th but my pal and I just play 4th otherwhise. Pic rel.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      I will now build a 3rd edition necron and tyranid armies ~1750.

  48. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Edition I always look forward to playing: 3rd (just so fricking easy to pick up and play).
    Edition I always have fun looking back after playing: 2nd (inevitably has the most fun stories looking back at battles, not as approachable as third though).

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      I never understood why they made 2e melee that convoluted, even if I appreciate the granularity of stuff like parry for THAT scale

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        I feel like they made it that way because a game was supposed to be played over an afternoon, and at lower relative points values than not only today, but the editions around it. 2nd is always a monster to look forward to playing, but games of 2nd are almost always great in hindsight (even if it is great in a hilarious way, like a vortex grenade pulling the only bridge across the board into the warp and both armies just awkwardly looking at each other and lobbing missiles as a result).

  49. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    3rd-4th was the best no question.

  50. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    When - and, more importantly, why - did vehicles stop having armour saves?

  51. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Did you armor values? I think armor saves are pretty new.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      When - and, more importantly, why - did vehicles stop having armour saves?

      They were present in Rogue Trader, but got removed in the second edition for some reason (the same second edition that also introduced funky multi-dice strength-independent penetration rolls for weapons).

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *