Which Is the greatest edition of 40k

[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. 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".


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) 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!