Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Having read through the post about JJ leaving and seeing it turn in to a moan fest about rules, I begain to think the moaning and just had a couple of queries.

Are the rules for 40k that bad, and if so why still play it?

Is there a company out there that makes a better set of rules and if so what makes them good?

I would love to give an answer, but I don't really have a major problem with any of the systems I play. But then again, I play for fun so I don't look too deep.

Wolfstan wrote:Is there a company out there that makes a better set of rules and if so what makes them good?.

Lots of them. Nearly every gamer has a pet system or two. The main thing is that 40k's system, despite being poorly written, is something of a lingua franca. It's easy to find 40k players, harder to get players for other games.

Heck, even most of GW's systems are better than 40K! Epic Armageddon is the roxxor, for instance.

40K is clunky but not actually downright "broken" as long as you accept its biases and limitations. That's not to say it could not be improved -- tinkering with the UGOIGO turn sequence might be interesting -- however it is primarily a game rather than a tactical simulation and there are benefits to a simple turn sequence.

The key problem with 40K is the poor quality of writing and editing, rather than the rules themselves.