I myself will not vote; I know nothing of the first 3 editions.

I voted 4th. It's far from perfect, but the flaws in 3rd were worse in my opinion, and the simplified rules set makes it easier to focus on story over rules.

2nd or 3rd. Looking back on it, I had the most fun with 2nd. Regardless, I tend to run a hybrid of the two (not that that's saying a lot).

3rd. The 3rd Ed BBB alone was pretty ok. The chaos came in when you added the other rules expansions and I've a sneaking suspicion that SR4 would be worse.

Third, though they should have brought back SR1-style autofire. Rolling per round was so much cleaner…

~J

3rd is my favortie any problems it has are easily fixable as has been proven here in these forums, and in MJLBB. There are just way, way to many things I don't agree with or like in SR4 to ever change.

Although I voted for 3rd as being my favorite Edition, I am currently playing and getting ready to start a campaign using 4th Edition. They both have their good and bad points in my opinion, but I honestly enjoy and like both...

3rd edition all the way. For the rules and the sourcebooks. Especially Corporate Download.

I've noticed people mentioning fluff books. My vote was based strictly on a rules standpoint. For fluff I liked all the editions, 4th being the least since it has the least amount of fluff.

I think it has something to do also with who was the line developper at the time...

Personnaly I really like the epoch of Tom Dowd and Mike Mulvihill...

Who were the other SR Line developpers beside Rob Boyle, Tom Dowd and Mike Mulvihill? I believe that Marc Gascoigne was at a time, right?

I think Carl Sargeant was.

And for me personally ... the days of Dowd were when shadowrun was in its glory.

Dowd -> Sargeant [briefly] -> Mulvihill -> Boyle

i think i like some of the 1st ed fluff best. sure, there was a lot of straight-out wacky stuff (i'm thinking about Sprawl Sites here), but nothing since is in the same class as Shadowtech and Shadowbeat.

that's not an old-school thing, by the way. i started playing SR within a month or two of SR3 hitting the shelves!

3rd is my favorite, but maybe just because that's also what I started with. Though I do like some things I've seen in 1st and 2nd.

4th... just takes away too many things I liked.

I'd have to say 2nd. 3rd is the better one rulewise since its basically 2nd with most shortcommings fixed, but 2nd was where the greates stories lay. I'll never forget running UB, Bug city, Harlquin and all those great adventures for the first time.
Also, 3rd has one big big flaw. It simply lacks the shadowtalk about equipment. That was what made the 2nd ED sourcebooks feel alive.

4th doesnt exist in my book.

Although now using 4th because there's so much in there I need (wireless matrix for example) and it's too much work to backport it all, I voted 2nd as it (a) has all the detailed rules I liked (real distinctions between spirit types, hermetic and shamanic magicians play differently, the various pools make for great tactical decision) and none of the goofy artwork of the 3rd edition which always made me feel the game was aimed at eight year olds.

one thing i've always liked about the pre-3rd ed rules is the fact that fast characters got multiple actions before slow characters. mmm, eight shots before anyone else in the room can move.

Ah yes, the good ol' days of walking into a room, seeing 4 security guards, and knowyou you could drop them all before any one of them could even think about pulling the trigger.

I think that 4th definately has the best ruleset (with some houserule modifications to get rid of some stupid oversights). 2nd has the best fluff though.

I voted 2nd because I learned to play with it and like beaumis said, it's where all the great stories are.

I agree Knasser, I hate the majority of the 3rd art as well.

...it was actually a very tough choice between 2nd & 3rd. I had some of the best times playing in 2nd (Bug City in particular) and using fluff like The London Sourcebook, Shadowbeat, and Corportate Shadowfiles. However, SR3 was definitely the most fleshed out edition to date.

I think 4 ed came out too soon, considering that SoA had just been released and SoSA was still in the works, and it really messed with the mechanics too much. I think a better move would have been tweaking what was already there as say a "ver. 3.5". Too many sourcebooks were "invalidated" by the change whereas the (excuse me) D&D source material remained pretty much unaffected after WotC revised their ruleset.

I null voted, since there are things I like and dislike about all the editions.

I'll have to decline to vote on this one. I liked all editions, with some awesome games in both 2nd and 3rd. Unfortunately I have yet to get a chance to play 4th edition. (Consequence of getting a job that requires moving frequently.) There are some things that look very promising with 4th edition, but I need to actually play it before venturing an opinion.

Fourth easily, Streamlined rules are amazing, the fact i dont have to plan a completely seperate "Mission" for someone who's a decker/hackler is totally amazing

everything is just much simplistic which makes it at least much easier for the GM to tell a good story

I voted 4th, but currently it is a near tie with 3rd. When the rules expansions start rolling out I will probably be leaning more toward 4th.

I went for 4th, mainly because it play's the fastest due to the streamlined mechanics (a 9 second gunfight involving 20 people can now be played out in about a half hour as opposed to the 1-1 1/2 hours of 2nd/3rd edition days or the 2+ hours of 1st edition.)

But when it comes to style and fluff, give me 1st and 2nd edition any day. Like Beaumis said, I miss the pointless shadowtalk about equipment, etc.

Beyond that, I always liked 3rd for the detailed description and distinctions that were put into the various magical traditions, something which I'm really feeling the lack of when it comes to 4th edition (you'll know my pain when the term "beast elemental" pops out of one of your player's wordholes )

Another reason I like 4th... it's still having things made for it.

...which is why I'm still sticking with 3rd for a while longer.

It's hell to run a detailed campaign with only the Core rules and one sourcebook.

I can't vote as I've only played in a 4th ed game, despite having flipped through a couple of previous edition source books. Personally, I think that this is a question that is best suited to wait until more expansion books for 4th ed have been released so there's more material to compare. I have thoroughly enjoyed using the 4th ed rules in Ophis' games that I'm in though, and am looking forward to the continuation of the campaign come October, when I return from vacation.

Comparing the BBB's I like 4th better, fewer bits missing overall. I agree that 3rd was ok, but I never met a group who actually understood all the rules for decking or rigging.

In 4th its almost too much of the same thing but ce' la plus as they say.