What was your Favourite Edition of 40k?

[crimsondave]

1 minute ago, Doghouse said:

Hands down absolutely has to be first for me, I'd never seen anything like it as a child and it was a time of such imagination and creativity that massively influenced my life. The first plastic space marines blew my mind, it was such an exciting time to be in the hobby as a youngster and even White Dwarf was a must have addition to the game for all the mind blowing articles and models. I learnt how to convert and paint without restrictions to limit my young imagination and I got to pass this love of the hobby onto other hobbyists ever since. I got to grow up with the game being formed by legends such as Rick Priestly, Jes Goodwin, John Blanche and all who will forever be rock stars to me.

 

I loved the rules, I loved the artwork and I loved the models, it was wonderful and I can say with all honesty first edition genuinely changed my life.

 

Thinking about it like that and not just the rules, I agree 100%.  Those original white plastic beakies were so cool.  WAY better than those lame ones that came with 2nd.

[ThePenitentOne]

My favourite edition was 9th- it was the first Crusade edition, which is a big piece of my preference, but I also liked that every faction got to have meaningful subfaction differentiation that actually made a difference on the table. Many factions throughout GW's edition history have had this, but this was the first edition in which EVERY faction in the game had it.

 

As for favourite armies, ALL of my 9th ed fighting was with multidetachment combined armies. Rather than fielding 100PL of a single subfaction, I'd go with 30/30/40, or 50/50. Never played above 100PL, so never got to make a 4 detachment force.

 

Favourite moments tended to be related more to Crusade than any one game. One was when my Primaris DW finally earned acceptance from the Firstborn and where rewarded with the Special Ammo Strat. Also, Repentia Redeeming themselves and becoming Celestians.

[Evil Eye]

I picked 4th, as I feel it has the most overall solid core rules and, played with a mix of 4th and 3.5 edition books, is probably the most overall flexible and enjoyable edition. 3rd is INCREDIBLY close, to be fair, especially with the HUGE amount of supplements and extra content available, but a lot of the best stuff is fully compatible with 4th. Case in point, most of the Chapter Approved rules, Imperial Armour books and 3.5 Codices work just fine with 4th. I also really like the 4E Codices (with some exceptions), as they have the best balance of fluff to crunch IMO. The Chaos codices for 4E are utter stinkers for sure (though IIRC they're the only bad books in the whole lineup; the Tyranid book is mostly an upgrade from the already fantastic 3E book!) but as a complete game package I'd say 4E is the best place to start from. A bit more streamlined and smooth to play than 3rd, but without the horrendous power-creep of 5th and onwards.

 

I will say though, the 3rd edition rulebook is one of my favourite 40K books ever made, period. The way the fluff is presented is simply perfect, the art is stellar throughout, the designer commentary is great and it even has full rules for playing the game out of the book if you want a simpler experience. Even if overall I feel 4th works better as a game, the 3rd book is an absolute masterpiece.

 

I can't comment on 1st/RT as I sadly missed out on the reissue due to IRL commitments, but 2nd does look incredibly fun even if it is a bit unbalanced and also monstrously "overengineered" from a rules perspective. I have the 2E Tyranid book and it's great- stuff like unique vehicle damage interactions and the tactica section is very cool.

 

(Here by whinging)

Spoiler

5th edition had a solid core (some dodgy rules like the wound-splitting thing aside) but the Codices absolutely ruined it as it was around this time that GW realized they could fully exploit power creep to generate sales. It also started some nasty trends with models becoming excessively toyetic, the balance issues becoming horrendously bad, fluff getting farcically bad and some factions getting utterly screwed over (Tyranids) compared to others (Grey Knights). It was also the edition that gave us the joys of No Model No Rules thanks to the Chapterhouse debacle.

 

6th edition was just 5th but even worse, with some of the worst designed models in the history of the game (Centurions and the Stormtalon to name just two), some good ideas implemented miserably (universal psychic powers, a fethtonne of USRs) and a greater divide between "Haves" and "Have-Nots" in terms of balance.

 

7th was functionally 6th but with extra crap bolted on in the form of formations. Now, granted, towards the end of the edition some of the Imperial Armour books and supplements like Traitor Legions added some nice flavour, and I reckon if you "curated" the rules you could make a halfway-playable game out of it, but that sweet spot only lasted a very short time before 8th.

 

8th I was actually on board with, as it looked like it would at least be playable but suffered from harsh power creep and quickly went in the wrong direction, adding back in a lot of bloat, but piecemeal and with less upside than previously. It also started the trend of "seasons" of 40K with points rebalancing, which I maintain is one of the worst things to ever happen to the game.

 

9th was similar to 8th, starting to look like it might be stepping in the right direction but quickly diving further down the well of "tabletop-eSports" nonsense, piecemeal bloat and much of the same problems 8th suffered later on. It was also then that GW basically admitted they were going to be making people's old collections obsolete.

 

10th, as I have mentioned many times before, is a complete and utter disaster and honestly one of the worst things GW has ever crapped out.

 

[Doghouse]

2 hours ago, crimsondave said:

Thinking about it like that and not just the rules, I agree 100%.  Those original white plastic beakies were so cool.  WAY better than those lame ones that came with 2nd.

 

Yeah, it's easy to think purely in terms of games rules but you also have the style of miniatures, artwork and which is your first edition to consider as well. I've never seen it as one edition being better than others but rather what is important to the fans. It could be the edition they first bought or got for Christmas/Birthday as a child or the ever evolving art styles or what were the first models they bought the first time they walked into a GW store.

 

Everyone has their own story and to be honest I love the first time they discovered our hobby stories regardless of whether they started in 1st or 10th edition or whether they have been in the hobby a day or decades.

[utahraptor232]

I can't comment on which edition is best, I dabbled in 9th and played one 500 point game of 10th in full. However, I am in possession of two physical Imperial Armour Apocalypse, plus the rest digitally, and this thread is making me consider putting them to use. Oldhammer with Truescale/Heresy Marines and other modern sculpts has always been an interesting idea to me, and I might have to organize that now!

[CrusaderXIII]

I definitely have to go with 5th being my favourite. I have a lot of fond memories are of going into my local GW to learn and play this edition of the game and I'm still pretty close to a lot of the people from that time in my life. Second place would be 8th for me, I liked how they simplified things and changed the way some mechanics worked and it reignited a spark of passion for the game that a lot of my local group had lost. Unfortunately with 10th I feel like the game is losing a bit of soul again, there are a few positives such as characters being able to join units again, and universal special rules being back but things like list building just feel hollow to me 

[Karak Norn Clansman]

Having had so few occasions to play, I'll mainly go by new background and artwork. It has to be 3rd, closely trailed by 1st for me. Then probably 4th. 9th deserves a special mention because the background in the first 20 or so pages of Codex: Leagues of Votann are some of the finest ever written for 40k from 1987 onward, full stop.

 

40k changes editions more often than some people change clothes, so many of them become blurred together for me.

 

The setting is in surprisingly good hands after close to 40 years of 40k. I could not have expected it to be this healthy and hale and fantastic, especially compared to how other non-GW settings have developed over decades.

 

Long live grimdark!

 

Cheers

[roryokane]

4th-5th, I think. Basically all the best bits of third edition, before we got to the truly broken shenanigans of 6th-7th. Also no Primaris marines. :P

[terminator ultra]

29 minutes ago, roryokane said:

no Primaris marines

in a perfect world....

[Interrogator Stobz]

I agree wholeheartedly that 1st was a time of wonder and awe.

The rules have always been janky, so they don't affect my vote on Edition.

2nd was a bit much for a young, broke and time poor young soldier me. But it started me on my love of robed and green DA instead of black.

3rd was a time of massive growth and army expansion, huge games, Apocalypse style. A Mechanized Battle Company was planned and eventually achieved.

4-6th, we had the strongest local group, many games played, and many cool weekends.

After that, the wheels fell off. 7th killed it even for our Comp guys.

8th through 10th incrementally killed my Battle Company, and my desire to play 40k. Far too mathhammery, not enough weirdness and immersion.

The Comp Boys continued, but us CAAC lads couldn't keep up.

[2PlusEasy]

3rd and 4th edition: it was the 40k I was introduced to and the 40k I grew up playing. Nostalgia as a kid playing in the Armageddon, Eye of Terror and Medusa worldwide campaigns. Also, that amazing black and white artwork of the time.

 

5th edition was a more polished ruleset then 3rd & 4th, but there was no consistency in codex design: some were really bad, Matt Ward's were stupidly good etc.

 

6th edition was when 40k really outgrew it's ruleset, which resulted in the cluster that was 7th edition. The identity of the game and the company's business practices also changed after that. However, we got Deathwatch and Genestealer Cults.

Edited March 13 by 2PlusEasy

[Grotsmasha]

It has to be 2nd Ed. for me. It's the only edition I played regularily with a good bunch of friends, there was 8 of us at our peak, 3 of us with dedicated gaming spaces with enough tables for two simultaneous games, usually 2v2, sometimes 4P free for all, last man standing.

[Firedrake Cordova]

For me too, it's 2nd Edition.

 

Maybe it's nostalgia as it's what I started with, but the smaller game size and the "detail" (vehicle speeds, acceleration/deceleration being a thing, vehicle damage charts with potentially flying turrets or missile launchers "cooking off", models on fire etc) are much more aligned with my preferences than larger games with more streamlined rules.

 

I preferred the rules for resolving hits in close combat that were found in subsequent editions, though.

 

Oh, and no-one mention Virus Outbreak strategy card...

Edited March 13 by Firedrake Cordova

[Ayatollah_of_Rock_n_Rolla]

3rd, because it's my favourite iteration of BA.

- the glorious BA Rhino rush

- flexible character wargear giving you 300+ pts Chaplains

- variable DC

- most fun Red Thirst rules so far

[Domhnall]

2nd Edition was my favourite, mainly because it's the only one I had any decent play of, but also I enjoyed the flavour of the rules over the streamlining of subsequent editions. I was put off by 3rd edition's complete redesign and streamlining, so never properly played it, especially losing each weapons character (choosing a particular weapon over another because it suited against particular targets I felt was great fun!) and vehicles becoming squishier (in my opinion at the time, whether that was true or not).
I had a go of 5th edition, and seemed OK but didn't properly play it to any degree. I can understand and appreciate why you'd want a streamlined game so that it's not a slog to go through just one game, however my preference was for the meatier, more roleplayesque style of 2nd: Vehicle armour and penetration tables, weapon penetration rolls etc were my jam! The D20+D4+D6+10 armour penetration of a chainfist was a must if going vehicle hunting (Thunder hammers auto penetrated). 

Yes, it was massively bloated and a chore to play once you got over a certain points game, but I loved it. 

[phandaal]

15 hours ago, Doghouse said:

 

Yeah, it's easy to think purely in terms of games rules but you also have the style of miniatures, artwork and which is your first edition to consider as well. I've never seen it as one edition being better than others but rather what is important to the fans. It could be the edition they first bought or got for Christmas/Birthday as a child or the ever evolving art styles or what were the first models they bought the first time they walked into a GW store.

 

Everyone has their own story and to be honest I love the first time they discovered our hobby stories regardless of whether they started in 1st or 10th edition or whether they have been in the hobby a day or decades.

 

100%. Still have fond memories of reading the original Tale of Four Gamers in White Dwarf featuring the Fat Bloke himself, Paul Sawyer!

 

It is easy to get focused on the rules, but there is so much more about the wargaming hobby and the current edition is often just a backdrop for everything else that is going on at the time.

[Xenith]

Honestly a toss up between 3rd and 5th, I think for love of getting into the game, then also largely balanced armies. Before the internet started getting involved with leafblowers and ruining local metas. I think this is where the tourney-fication began really. 

 

Maybe 4th was the high point, after rhino rush had calmed down but before the 4th ed codexes that dulled the game? 

 

I loved the game at the point where someone putting a Land Raider on the table was actually a big deal and it still came with a sense of awe, same with monoliths. Everything just seems pretty bland now by comparison: "oh, you have 3 lancers? Great". 

[Tyriks]

This is hard for me to answer. I started in 4th, but after 5th had launched (no one in the group wanted to pay for a new BRB). So I played 4th and 5th, quit for 6th, came back mid 7th.

 

I think fondly of 4th/5th but not really for gameplay. I miss the mystique and the lore from this time, I think, not the rest.

 

7th sucked, as a game. I don't mind the concept of formations, but the imbalance and the fact that my Blood Angels were always worse than vanilla marines hurt a lot. Also getting tabled by Ynnari a lot at the end of the edition was super frustrating. Getting to shoot less in your own turn than your opponent is just not a fun game. But I was also going through some rough circumstances in real life and the hobby helped a lot with that.

 

8th I think was a huge step up for gameplay but Primaris killed marines for me. They just don't "feel" like marines to me. Individual units are fine, I even like a bunch of the models, but as an army they just don't click for me. I soent all of 8th trying to convince myself I'd get used to them, but never did.

 

9th was the launch I was most excited for, and a lot of ideas from 9th were good. But Necrons weren't fun and the constant changes were too much for me. I did a ton of painting, at least, but when my lists were invalidated before I had a chance to play them repeatedly it just made it feel pointless. I like balance changes but it was too much changing too fast, and GW had a habit of nerfing the wrong thing in my eyes, like my Craftworld Eldar list getting nerfed repeatedly because Harlequins were too strong.

 

10th has been fun every time I've played, but I life has made it hard to play much. And its still too early to say how this edition will turn out. It seems like they learned a lot from 9th's mistakes but I am not at all confident in GW at this point.

 

So, short answer, I don't know. Most editions have had some parts I liked and miss, but they've all had problems too.

[Brother Christopher]

I eventually voted for 5th. The rules were way more stable and, therefore, manageable back then. Even though there were some pretty frustrating flaws (the vehicle damage chart that has always frustrated my Tyranind friend), I really enjoyed the feel of the skirmishes. However, I am aware that, apart from nostalgia, my recollection of and fondness for the edition might be skewed since in my local club there weren't that many 'power gamers' so the poor balance of the Codexes that I've been reading about online never really affected me. I mean, Black Templars didn't have a 5th edition codex and did pretty well.

 

In terms of lore and the 'feel' of Warhammer, it must be 4th.

[TheMawr]

I started in ( and only played ) 2nd, I had Eldar and Spacewolves though the latter dissapointed me for lack of wolfiness ( yep, there are some who do like that :p ), as I really disliked playing WFB I also converted my Skaven for 40k and worked on my own codex for them. ( 2nd edition actually partly shaped my future career path)

 

I cant comment alot on 3rd to 6th, a combination of early adult real-life bringing other distractions and to my taste GWs output became boring.. the miniatures, the art, the paintjobs/presentation. I did keep on hobbying and buying, just not reading or being involved with it all.

 

During 7th I came back to looking more into things, I think it was the wulfen that where the first breaktrough ( yep again ;) ).. but I found the game had changed and I had to go trough hoops to play the things I liked, in contrary to 2nd editions freer army creation. It also seemed that there where always rules spread out, exceptions to rules, exceptions to exceptions.. it was extremely frustrating. But even worse the galaxy had become small. Named characters where named characters, not examples of similar characters as 2nd edition alluded to, and the art was mostly marketing for miniatures they sell.. not the world building, atmosphere creating art that I was used to in 2nd and early 3rd.

 

Gathering storm got me to stick around ( there was also the rumor of an exodite knight on foot and a corsair character coming up soon, wich turned out mistaken.) I bought the Ynnari triumvirate as soon as it was released, something I did the last time during 2nd edition. I got the feeling that GW wanted to make a big swoop and make the galaxy big and mysterious again. I think 7th is the one where GW was most busy exploring new things miniaturewise, wich is the element it wins at so far.

 

8th edition got me to almost lose interest completely. 40k felt like an afterthought to AoS at that time.

 

For some reason 9th caught my interest again, I think something as simple as releasing a miniature with every codex helps if only purely from the "oh what will they get" vibe. Art and Presentation was also getting better. I still didnt get an "I want to play this game" feeling, not until boarding patrol and the more free armylist building rules at the end ( I forgot the name ).

 

10th, the one I eventually have chosen in the poll, has absolutely the worst graphic design (at least the index cards are terrible and the rulebook is boring), and for all its potential I feel GW is too stuck in previous editions and trying to emulate what they did then to embrace the ruleset they created, and now we are often stuck in a worst of both worlds situation. It apparently also nerfed the unit type I prefer... "sword and pistol skirmishers", and favors the things I like least "tanks and other big guns". There is a lot of things I would do different (but this is not the topic for it.)

 

But it is the edition I understand most, and I feel like I want to play it the most ( I havent yet). I also absolutely love a lot of the concepts going on. At the core level of the game, 10th really is my favorite. Another thing this edition does right so far, that I rarely see being appreciated; smaller release waves spread over a bigger amount of factions... though that doesnt really count as being an element of the edition.

 

 

[Remain_Indoors]

100% due to nostalgia I’m sure, but 2nd edition. It was when I started playing and discovering the background. I particularly fondly remember the period towards the end, as the Necrons were slowly being revealed in White Dwarf.

[Corswain]

3rd edition was the first 40K I was exposed to and it really set the scene and tone for me to this day. 

[Sergeant Centurion]

For the lore and more complicated and exiting games: 6º.

For fun and relaxing games: 8º.

For nostalgic times: 4º.

[Valkyrion]

During 2nd edition I was between 10 and 15 years old - what did I know about anything at all at that age? Not a lot, but I knew Blood Angels were cool, and I knew Genestealers were horror movie level scary, and I knew the description of a Deathspitter would upset my mother but I read it to her anyway. 

There was no meta, no internet to tell you what you should do, no one to tell you that you can't do something and the whole thing was violently innocent, beautifully naive and wonderfully fun. 

I'm 40 now, and it's taken me the best part of 25 years to find that same level of enjoyment in the hobby whilst maintaining the facade of being a grown up. 

 

So I voted for 2nd. 

[Helias_Tancred]

I've been in the hobby since 6th edition. My favorite edition of the rules is the current one, 10th. To clarify that is edition rules.