Which Is the greatest edition of 40k

[Grailkeeper]

I'm not sure if this question has been asked yet, and if not why not?

Which was the best edition of 40k?

1st- the Grandaddy of them all- quitte different to the game we know and love today
2nd- Saw much of what we know today cometogether during the infamous red period
3RD- Some might say the greatest version of 40k others might say it cost the game its soul.
4th- for once evolution rather than revolution- is it the over looked middle child between 3rd and 5th?
5th- The current version- for better or worse.

Got one you love? got one you Loathe? is the past better viewed through rose tinted glasses or do kids today not know what they're missing out on.

I want to see people fighting their corners with strong opinions on all sides- GO!

[DarkLink]

Well, I've only played 4th and 5th, and 5th is basically an improved 4th, so...

[DrLove42]

Ditto...got into it late 4th, so 5th is kinda all i know

[BuFFo]

I have played every edition and Rogue Trader was a completely different game than any other edition. It was more of a role playing game with a Game Master running the game between two people.

I voted 5th. Easily the best edition for the overall health of the game. Best model sculpts, best rules, going back to 2nd edition thickness codices with tons of fluff.

[fuzzbuket]

ive only plaed 4/5 ed but there was some things about 4 that i LOVED (VP kill team ect) and some things have improved about 4th in 5th its hard but i voted 4th

[BlackKnight15624]

My vote goes with 2nd- I always enjoyed the depth of the game back then, even if it was a bit clunky.

[eagleboy7259]

5th technically is the best and most balanced rules wise, but if you're talking about what was going on in the 40k universe, 3rd edition was the best. You had all those mini-dexes like Armageddon, Craftworld Eldar, Eye of Terror, Chapter Approved Lists, etc. 40k just felt so personalized, your army was YOUR army. Hadly anyone played the same list. Not to mention the internet hadn't quite turned 40k into the list fu we see today.

Also you had new and exciting books like Tau, Necrons, and Demon Hunters coming out. Stuff wasn't being re-hashed, it was NEW!

[Porty1119]

I'd honestly have to root for 2d ed, from the various compendiums I've found online. It really exemplified the beer and pretzels mentality, which for me is the main reason to play ANY wargame: Have fun, hang out with buddies. It shouldn't matter too much if things get nuts, because, if people are TRULY playing to enjoy themselves, you'll have fun, win or lose.

[scadugenga]

I've been playing since RT days as well, and I have to say I had the most fun with 2nd Ed. The most flexibility, and they cared *a lot* about the fluff. Unlike 3rd ed, where you got zilch in the way of fluff with your 'dexes.

5th is a good iteration of the game, but 2nd were the true glory days, IMO.

[BuFFo]

I'll say this, some of you may have rose tinted glasses. In 2nd edition, you never ever saw Transports because they were flying coffins. But why would you need transports when your HQ could quite literally kill your opponent's entire army?

2nd edition was my favorite edition until 5th came about, and I slowly changed my opinion.

[scadugenga]

Oh, I'm aware of the faults that 2nd ed had, don't get me wrong.

I just think that overall it was a more complex and variable game. Being unable to individualize my eldar, for example, is something I've been not happy with since 1998.

[eldargal]

I started playing in 2nd, admittedly I was very young but all I remember is tanked up characters slaughtering everything, but it was still fun*. 3rd was kind of meh, 4th much better and 5th really very good in my opinion. 1st is basically an RPG as Buffington said, its still great fun.


*Really all editions have been good, if you houserule some of the bits you don't like.

[cobra6]

I also started playing back in the "Herohammer" days of 2nd Ed, and there are two things I remember (quasi) clearly, apart from the psychadelic paint schemes and the "space cactus" terrain.

1) Getting absolutely manhandled by my friend's cheesewolves army, consisting (as I remember it) almost entirely of Terminators, each of which had an assault cannon and a cyclone pack. That's right, every Termy. They also had a 2+ on 2D6 back then, so they only died if you rolled snakeyes, and you couldn't get a shot off at them because they were always in overwatch. He also had a bunch of tanks and Dreds with both ceramite armor and ablative armor. (Can you tell I'm still bitter?)

2) I also remember getting totally hooked on the incredible depth and darkness of the game; the fluff was very expansive but there were alot more unanswered questions, loose ends, and unexplored niches to explore back then. Alot of the fluff really was up to the gamer, and that was a huge amount of fun.

Some great memories, but I have to go with 5th Ed as the best. Compared to the fun but extremely lopsided and complicated play of 2nd Ed, I find 5th a more user-friendly and balanced game to actually play. And the return to having depth in the fluff, as well as having alot of those loose-ends answered now, puts 3rd edition ("Imperium good, Orks/Chaos/Nids, bad. What else could you want to know?") to shame.

[scadugenga]

1) Getting absolutely manhandled by my friend's cheesewolves army, consisting (as I remember it) almost entirely of Terminators, each of which had an assault cannon and a cyclone pack. That's right, every Termy. They also had a 2+ on 2D6 back then, so they only died if you rolled snakeyes, and you couldn't get a shot off at them because they were always in overwatch. He also had a bunch of tanks and Dreds with both ceramite armor and ablative armor. (Can you tell I'm still bitter?)



Termies, like Carnefices (plural?) had a 3+ on 2d6. Nothing had a better save. And lascannon had a -6 save mod w/2d6 wounds. Term's were obnoxious, but not all that terrible.

[BuFFo]

Termies, like Carnefices (plural?) had a 3+ on 2d6. Nothing had a better save. And lascannon had a -6 save mod w/2d6 wounds. Term's were obnoxious, but not all that terrible.

Carnifex also had an invulnerable/warp save, and regeneration. Damn thing had like 4 saves before you could wound it, lol.

[Farseer Uthiliesh]

I have played Rogue Trader and 2nd Edition, but strangely I have yet to play 4th or 5th (never bought 3rd). I enjoyed the earlier editions, especially 2nd. However, I voted 5th, because I love the rules and believe that the current background is the best yet. Expecting to start playing 5th in a month or so - if I get 500 points of Dark Eldar painted.

[Melissia]

5th edition without a shadow of a doubt. The other editions whimper and whine as it comes along, pathetically begging for even just a speck of its coolness, a tiny little droplet of awesomeness to get on them through 5th edition's sweat.

[RebelGrot]

I had to say 2nd, rose-tinted or not.

The variety of everyone's army. The flexibility and effectiveness of pretty much every unit in your codex (the awesomeness of the Warp Spider). The super thick codexes. Not everyone, with every army, using infinite transports and same-same net lists (a slight exaggeration but you know what I mean). Overwatch.

Looking back there were OTT elements everywhere - the original Eversor Assassin being able to take out a whole squad of Blood Claws (who were hard at the time) without taking a wound, then follow up into a new combat. Ragnar Blackmane vs Maugan Ra EVERY game as they were the only ones capable of killing the other. A Dark Reaper Exarch with missile launcher, power fist AND power sword......*sigh*

I guess I don't have anything like enough experience with the 5th ed rules so I am a little biased, and from a model/fluff/depth/apocalypse/cities of death etc perspective current everything wins hands down, I just have a lot of nostalgia for 2nd. 3rd was where I lost interest with playing, not because of the rules, but because my brother went to university so that was my gaming partner gone. I never played or owned 4th so no comment.

[Melissia]

Yeah, that's seriously rose tinted glasses. Fifth edition has far more variety than second edition ever did.

Hell, even third edition had more for my Sisters. In second edition we had two vehicles, three squads, and a few characters. It was pathetic.

For the fifth edition codices... on GW's flagship Ultramarines, fifth edition beats second edition, with fifth edition having more characters, more units, more vehicles... just more. Angels of Death was definitely worse than C: BA and C: DA are right now, two very strong codices which have a wide variety of builds which are all fairly decent to damn powerful in capability. The Imperial Guard codex wasn't as powerful, either, though it lacks a few toys it had back then it's gained plenty more new ones, and better rules besides. The Tyranid codex relied on Imperial Guard units to beef up its army list and without them it was pathetically limited compared to the fifth edition.

No, Second Edition doesn't really match up to fifth edition. GW has expanded and improved upon its game since then, and I'm glad we no longer have second edition.

[scadugenga]

I'll disagree with you almost categorically on every point save the limitations on the Sisters. They definitely got expanded and improved in later editions.

You didn't need special characters in 2nd ed, because you have the freedom to create and almost endless variety of character within your own codex.

Every army (well, save Tyranids, I think) had the ability to have allies from other codices--further variety.

2nd edition--nothing was "cookie cutter" they way it has been trending since 1998. 5th edition, despite a marked improvement overall in trying to make the new codices more flavorful, is streamlined to the point of relative anonymity.

Take the new DE Archon. Certainly a powerful character, but you're going to see an archon on the table and know he's got a huskblade, shadowfield, soul trap & blast pistol. Anything additional is just flavoring.

Why? Because there's not much you can do to make him a reliable asskicker in the new 'dex. There's no other role for him to play.

GW's new direction of making "unique unlockable" builds via special characters is not variety. It's boredom on a whole new level.

[Melissia]

I'll disagree with you almost categorically on every point save the limitations on the Sisters. They definitely got expanded and improved in later editions.
Go look at the codices, and count the unit choices and options. Without fail the fifth edition codices have more.

[scadugenga]

Go look at the codices, and count the unit choices and options. Without fail the fifth edition codices have more.

Since I'm at work, I'll just touch the one I'm overly familiar with.

Eldar:

Lost:
Warlocks as independent HQ units with multiple mastery levels.
Pirates
Exodites
Real shuriken catapults
Real swooping hawk rules
Harlequin high Avatar
Harlequin High Warlock
Harlequin Solitaire
Harlequin Death Jester as an actual independent unit
Harlequin Warlock as an actual independent unit
The ability to have SM, IG taken as allied units.


Eldar gain from 2nd to 5th:
Fire Prism/Nightspinner
Autarch

And don't start on options. In 2nd you had real wargear card options. 5th is ridiculously childlike in saying you can only select from "x" number of provided options that provide no individuality whatsoever.

[Melissia]

Eldar don't have a fifth edition codex.

[scadugenga]

Eldar don't have a fifth edition codex.

They have a codex that is for use with 5th edition. They just don't have a *new* codex yet.

But that didn't stop you from using the Sisters as an example--who also don't have a new codex for 5th ed yet.

Be that as it may, here's a test:

Make a 5th ed.IG Company Commander HQ unit in as many ways as you can.

I'll do the same with 2nd ed. I bet you I come up with almost infinitely more variations.

[Melissia]

But that didn't stop you from using the Sisters as an example--who also don't have a new codex for 5th ed yet.
No, I used an example of how second edition was hideously limited.

[scadugenga]

And the 2nd ed Eldar 'dex is a perfect example of how 2nd is perfectly and wildly variable.

[Melissia]

Yes, compared to a fourth edition codex it is.

As huge of an improvement over second edition as it was, the third edition Sisters codex (IE, C:WH) is hideously limited compared to any fifth edition codex, having approximately a third of the unit choices a fifth edition codex has. Codex Ultramarines has quite a bit less unit options than Codex Space Marines. Codex: Tyranids in second edition was about half the size of the fifth edition codex without the use of infected units from the Guard codex. Angels of Death is simply not comparable to the two codices the armies have right now. IG is a mixed bag, but they're still overall gaining from fifth edition compared to second.

[RebelGrot]

Yeah, that's seriously rose tinted glasses. Fifth edition has far more variety than second edition ever did.

And I'd hope so too...if there were no more units than 15 years ago or what ever it is 40k would be a very stale game.


For the fifth edition codices... on GW's flagship Ultramarines, fifth edition beats second edition, with fifth edition having more characters, more units, more vehicles... just more. Angels of Death was definitely worse than C: BA and C: DA are right now, two very strong codices which have a wide variety of builds which are all fairly decent to damn powerful in capability. The Imperial Guard codex wasn't as powerful, either, though it lacks a few toys it had back then it's gained plenty more new ones, and better rules besides. The Tyranid codex relied on Imperial Guard units to beef up its army list and without them it was pathetically limited compared to the fifth edition.

Of course all the modern codices are more complex with more varied rules. The whole structure of the game has changed so these are all pretty obvious and pointless observations to be making an argument with. As above, of course there's more of everything, they've had getting on two decades to improve on army lists since then so we'd all hope so. Ultramarines/Space Marine benefit directly from more units and builds. Angels of Death was compromise at best but was, at the time, still a very good and customisable codex, I play a very similar BA force to the one I did then and I've been doing just fine with it thanks. The Imperial Guard codex was old school in comparison to now with 'just' 10 man squads etc but, like now, in comparison to it's peers they had way more tanks, guns and men than everyone else at the time. Finally having played against Tyranids a lot back then I never played one with IG units in and they always did ok. They were (relatively) new so yea, had a slightly smaller selection, but that didn't make them as poor as you suggest, they wre just damn ugly models!

As Scadugenga mentions, armies like the Eldar were playable in infinitely more ways than the current 'dex really is (especially if you listen to the internet), especially as there was no over reliance on putting everyone in a box, and it was still possible to run their sub armies of Exodites and Harlies.


No, Second Edition doesn't really match up to fifth edition. GW has expanded and improved upon its game since then, and I'm glad we no longer have second edition.

The OP question, and my point you respond to, isn't about whether they match, it's about the greatest. Pele is the greatest ever footballer (soccer) - doesn't mean he'd be up to the pace of todays game. Muhammad Ali is generally thought to be the greatest boxer, someone now with modern training etc might just kick his arse...they're still the greatest.

So yes, 5th is big, has more choice (all mentioned by me and others previously) and reaches a wider audience. It's very good. 2nd, for me, is greatest though. Let's see what 6th is like...

[Grailkeeper]

The OP question, and my point you respond to, isn't about whether they match, it's about the greatest. Pele is the greatest ever footballer (soccer) - doesn't mean he'd be up to the pace of todays game. Muhammad Ali is generally thought to be the greatest boxer, someone now with modern training etc might just kick his arse...they're still the greatest.

So yes, 5th is big, has more choice (all mentioned by me and others previously) and reaches a wider audience. It's very good. 2nd, for me, is greatest though. Let's see what 6th is like...

Do you mean like how Citizen Kane is considered one of the greatest films ever because it invented so many techniques modern cinema goers take for granted, so much so that to a modern audience its pretty dull because this new stuff is just standard cinema techniques used in any old film now?

[Kahoolin]

Loved 2nd ed when I was a kid. It had vortex grenades for crying out loud. And my squats had hoverboards, and my Eldar guardians had lasguns and power fists.

But as a grown up, I gotta say 5th is the best for me. Its pretty clean and consistent rules-wise (unless you try to break it), it's fun and cinematic, and the models are getting pretty amazing.

[Cherub]

By far and away it is 2nd. They only problem I found with it was in the larger games it took forever to get through a game. The varitity of the games was amazing and heros, tanks and termies where the monsters of death they are supose to be. And as everyone knows your army is never really finished and as we got more and more stuff painted and played bigger and bigger games it began to take all day then all weekend to get through a game. Pretty much the only way I play 40k now is Apoc, and for that 5th works just fine.

[RebelGrot]

Do you mean like how Citizen Kane is considered one of the greatest films ever because it invented so many techniques modern cinema goers take for granted, so much so that to a modern audience its pretty dull because this new stuff is just standard cinema techniques used in any old film now?

Haha, excellent! Yes, but i dont think dull is quite the right word. Maybe those of us who know the modern incarnations of the game just from 4th or 5th ed's look back and just dont see what the fuss is about - out dated techniques maybe, where as others remember the innovation and the excitement and grandness of it all. Then there's just the odd one that never liked Orson Welles and never will...

Or how the Model T ford was one of the greatest automobiles - brought cars to the masses, big production steps forward, classic design etc etc but its very much different to the modern greatest, say the Bugatti Veyron, which is faster and has more toys to choose from, but also is MUCH more expensive!

[Melissia]

The Model T may have been a historic and important model, but I would never want to actually drive a Model T. Therefor it is not the best.

[Paul]

The Model T may have been a historic and important model, but I would never want to actually drive a Model T. Therefor it is not the best.

I thought the same thing, but there are people who think otherwise:
In the Top Ten list for the Military Channel's Greatest Tanks:

1) M1A2 Abrams
2) PzKpfW IV Panther
3) Leopard 2A6

etc...

How the hell a Panther is a better tank than the Leopard is beyond me. But I almost died laughing. So there really are some people who think that "because it was good then, it's better now."

[DarkLink]

Well, the History Channel's top ten list explicitly state that they refer to tanks within their time period. So, at the time, the Panzer was the best tank.

Of course, some of the History Channel top ten lists have some wtf choices in them, too.



But I'm in the same camp. When I hear "best", I think best. An Leopard would slaughter a Panzer, therefore a Leopard is better. Sure, in special cases you can consider the difference in time periods, but for all useful intent and purpose, a Leopard is better than a Panzer. I see no real world value in nostalgia.

[RebelGrot]

Best is different to greatest. I don't want to go to work in a model t, or roll into a modern theatre of war in any of Germanys superior WWII tanks, they're definitely no longer the best. We could go on - Shakespeare one of the greatest playwrights...I'm not interested in standing up for three hours (trust me, I've been) when i can go to the West End or cinema!

Anyway, enough of the nonsense! I do love the depth, models, extra fluff and so on and so on of the current game. Some elements might be frustrating every now and again but give it a few years (it's that hard to get a game in) and I might just have my rosy glasses on when I look back at 5th too.

[Melissia]

And I don't even agree that second edition is the greatest. We have more (And often better) background, more/better models (including more plastic instead of metal), more/better units/rules/etc, compared to second.

I don't think having less necessarily qualifies something for "Greatest". Not to say it disqualifies, but 2nd edition wasn't so great from my perspective.

[RebelGrot]

I see what you mean but its not 'what edition had the best minis'. I LOVED playing 2nd ed, it's subjective so it's really not worth arguing. 5th obviously has better minis, GW has more technology and more cash to invest so they're bound to be.

[Melissia]

I see what you mean but its not 'what edition had the best minis'.

No, it's "what is the greatest edition", and from an overall perspective it definitely is fifth edition. There's more overall lore, there's more and better models, there's more armies and they're generally better designed with more consistent flavor, etc etc etc.

[RebelGrot]

No, it's "what is the greatest edition", and from an overall perspective it definitely is fifth edition. There's more overall lore, there's more and better models, there's more armies and they're generally better designed with more consistent flavor, etc etc etc.

In your opinion, which is fine for you. I mine it's 2nd, which is also fine.

[Melissia]

Oh wait, it's my opinion? Well ******** a monkey, pardner, that's a gosh darn ****ing good thing to know now ain't it?

Geeze, and here I thought I was saying someone ELSE's opinion. Good to know it's mine instead. What a helpful poster.

[RocketRollRebel]

I started around the middle of 4th edition so I've had about equal time with each and I gotta say 5th has way more awesome to it. My only complaint is probably wound allocation that slows the game down and feels a bit cheaty but I can live with that.

[DarkLink]

Best is different to greatest.

The definitions seem similar enough to me:p. Both refer to something as being at the top of the proverbial food chain.

In fact, one of the definitions for "best" is "greatest; most":rolleyes:.


Now, you see a difference because you're interjecting the value of nostalgia into the definition. You can say that Steve Prefontaine is one of the greatest distance runners ever, because he was a celebrity among the community. Never mind that top runners nowadays are faster than him, you're placing extra value on nostalgia to make up for that.

But, from a purely objective standpoint, there are better runners than Steve Prefontaine, because they have better times than he did.


Point is, some people will place extra value on nostalgia and consider old (but not as good) stuff as better. Other people could care less about nostalgia, and only care about which game would be more fun if you were to actually sit down and play it right now.



We could go on - Shakespeare one of the greatest playwrights...

Yeah, but that's because even today people love Shakespear. He's no considered great because his plays were only good a couple hundred years ago. He's great because even a couple hundred years later, his plays are still among the best.

[RebelGrot]

some people will place extra value on nostalgia and consider old (but not as good) stuff as better. Other people could care less about nostalgia, and only care about which game would be more fun if you were to actually sit down and play it right now.
...
Yeah, but that's because even today people love Shakespear. He's no considered great because his plays were only good a couple hundred years ago. He's great because even a couple hundred years later, his plays are still among the best.

This would all apply if I was looking from a purely nostalgic point, I genuinely just prefer 2nd though, I still like how it played. Sure, there are other benefits in the modern game but there's a bunch of stuff people miss from the older versions too. As I've said, the more I play 5th the better or worse I might like it but as it stands as a gamer, if I had to play one, it'd be 2nd. As for people still loving Shakespeare people are also still loving 2nd by the looks of the poll, more poignant when considered there's people voting who never played the older versions, therefore giving 5th (and 4th) a bit of a head start.

[Archon]

I play since 3rd Ed (Started with DE:cool:) but I know 40K since 2nd (played WFB at this time cause back then I was totally fantasy and no scifi - besides the 40K minis were ugly).

With 4th Ed the terrain rules and the knew CC-rules realy bring the game forward, but

with 5th Ed it feels right, the game is more action, more tactic and cc as well as armour seems on the righ way. TLoS ist not best but anyway the 5th is current best fun Ed in 40 K.

This is not true for some codecies like CSM - damn the 4th dex was a bible!

[Bigred]

I love 5th, I really do, but at the end of the day 3-5th are wargames. As much as GW wishes the game were some quasi-hobby-gamish-make your own adventure-thingy, it's a wargame pure and simple.

What GW says the game is now is what it WAS during the heady days at the very end of 1st and early 2nd edition. As Mako says in Conan "Now let me tell you of the days of High Adventure!!!"

I remember those days when EVERY SINGLE White Dwarf was a treasure, opening up entire new vistas of the 40k universe you'd never even dreamt of. The Titans, the Heresy, Ogryns, Dreads, Aspect Warriors, New Army Lists, Genestealer Cults, Harlequins, and on and on... I remember running greedily to the gamestore to see what was new and cool each month. New minis, units and rules every 30 days.

Don't get me wrong, that game couldn't survive in the modern day under the sheer weight of its outmoded detailed and obtuse rulesystem, and playing a game with over 40 models per side was a huge pain-- but there is no denying it was great fun.

Like the old saying goes, "You can never go home again"


~Also (modhat) play nice, we're discussing toy soldiers. What would H.G.Wells say if could see us! (/modhat)

[scadugenga]

~Also (modhat) play nice, we're discussing toy soldiers. What would H.G.Wells say if could see us! (/modhat)

Hey, I thought HG was a woman? :)

Now, back to topic--what Bigred said--completely. RT/2nd Ed was also the heyday of White Dwarf, when it really was something eagerly anticipated and well worth the money.

Yeah, we can't go back, but I think, if WFB is any indication, that they may be trending towards adopting some of the old 2nd ed conventions going forwards. (re % of points, etc)

2nd Ed was definitely the game of high adventure. People may deride it as "herohammer" but it was the heroes that made each army more unique, and it was almost more fun watching what they would accomplish on the battlefield* as it was trying to win the game.

*except for Tyranids. They were really not too dissimilar from what you see now, play-style and variations.

[scadugenga]

As for people still loving Shakespeare people are also still loving 2nd by the looks of the poll, more poignant when considered there's people voting who never played the older versions, therefore giving 5th (and 4th) a bit of a head start.

This is a VERY valid point. You'd have to be at least in the mid to late 20's to have really played 2nd ed. 3rd is 12 years old. So even if you got into 2nd young (rare, given the complexity of the game back then) a 14 year old would be 26 now. Anyone 25 and under probably didn't get into the game until 3rd ed.

Holy demographics-screwing-the-poll batman!

[DarkLink]

As for people still loving Shakespeare people are also still loving 2nd by the looks of the poll, more poignant when considered there's people voting who never played the older versions, therefore giving 5th (and 4th) a bit of a head start.

Well, people love Shakespeare because people still do his plays all the time.

On the other hand, are people voting for 2nd ed because they still play it and love it, or because they have fond memories of it? We don't have any data to draw a conclusion either way there, so you really can't compare 2nd ed with Shakespeare in that way.

Not saying that 2nd ed is bad, just that there's a confounding variable in there, so you can't assume that people are voting for 2nd ed because it's more fun instead of voting due to nostalgia.

[miteyheroes]

Termies, like Carnefices (plural?) had a 3+ on 2d6. Nothing had a better save. And lascannon had a -6 save mod w/2d6 wounds. Term's were obnoxious, but not all that terrible.

I'm sure I remember something with 2+ on 2d6 saves. Did the Mark of Khorne give +1 to your save (so Khornate Terminators were 2+ on 2d6?)

Of course, in those days almost all guns had some sort of save modifier (rather than the rubbish modern AP system). So 2+ on 2d6 wasn't quite as horrific as it sounds!