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.

 Talys wrote:

This is untrue. You MUST only take certain units IF your opponent takes certain units. If you play in a friendly group that is more interested in trying things out and playing different stuff, this just isn't a problem, nor is rules lawyering (trying to pick at the ambiguity of language), which for our little group happens... never.

Many of the problems like wave serpents and riptides are also only an issue because people play on 6x4 tables devoid of meaningful terrain. If you pack an table with tons of line-of-sight blocking terrain, the "40k is a shooty game" dynamic changes dramatically.

There is also a difference between ambiguously written rules (which I don't think is a problem, unless you insist on making it one) and units that are less useful than others (which I do think is a problem, unless you insist on fixing it outside of RAW).

Again, there's a friendly group and then there's the target audience that plays like the GW studio team, forging those narratives. The difference between 40K and other game systems is that outside of the few units in each army that "work", you're basically penalized for "trying things out and playing different stuff". Sure you can have some fun doing that but you're basically giving up any chance at all of winning a game if you're playing by the rules written in the rulebook.

I'm a big believer in terrain and my friends and I pack our tables so that they look like modern, downtown cityscapes; that still doesn't save anyone from a jetpack monstrous creature with markerlight support dropping cover-save ignoring pie-plates, where is there to hide on a 6x4 table, no matter how much terrain/buildings you pack on? Or large units of wraiths that ignore all the pretty terrain? Winners and losers; some units are more viable than others.

I agree with your last points here. Being a casual player, poorly worded rules are not necessarily as big an issue as they would be to a tournament player BUT the 15-20 minute conversation over what the rule means, could mean, the different interpretations of what was intended and how it may interact with some unit that was created after the rule; that all detracts from the precious little play time that I am actually able to squeeze into my calendar. My friends and I are beer-drinking, pretzel-eating chums but we would still like to win a game every now and then so the conversations do occur and not always with a clear decision which leaves a bad taste in all our mouths (or maybe that was the beer we chose this time around ).

 Talys wrote:
I actually play WM/H here and there, and I own a a massive PP model collection. They're cool models, though I wish I hadn't bought the "restic" ones. I also own almost a full set of (printed) current rulebooks, but mostly I just read them for fun, as my friends and I prefer 40k.

It's just a different game, with different mechanics. I dislike how the warcaster is so central -- if your warcaster dies, the game is effectively over, and you need the warcaster for all your neat stuff -- whereas, 40k, there's a table full of units, and every unit can be sacrificed. Whether Dante lives or dies matters little.

For myself, I am always sad when I see WM/H tables, because the tables look so sparse. I am really a models guy, and I am not happy unless a table has awesomely painted models packed in on a table. The more the better (equally, I don't want to play someone with just 7 imperial knights). Also, I'm not really a short game guy; I like epic battles. But whatever, WM/H is a good game, and I'm glad it exists.

I just used WM/H as an example. Sure, there are things about the game that I like and that I don't like but what WM/H is a bastion of purity in, compared to 40K, is in the tightness of the rules. I would love for the rules writers at PP to rewrite 40K and see what that would look like. Keep the feel of the game the same, just tighten everything up and clean up all the poor grammar, word choices and everything else that GW half-asses. Now that would be a treasure to behold. But something else here to realize is that PP doesn't make rules in a vacuum. Sure they have studio games, etc but MKII was written with a GREAT deal of community contact and feedback. Yes, a large group of people can often sound like the braying of a giant herd of jackasses but people will take you seriously if you just show that you're willing to listen.....and not close down every official avenue of corporate contact that ever existed as GW has done. A mature organization knows that a fair amount of customer contact is going to be worthless but you hire people who can sift through the chaff for the nuggets of gold, and believe me, there is gold to be had.

We can most certainly agree that modelwise, GW still generally tops PP but PP's coming along in that regard.

 Talys wrote:
It's a smaller scale game with fewer models on the table, so of course it's cheaper. But, if you really like modelling, you run out of models very quickly. In 40k, you can buy a battleforce box, and a few addons, and have a perfectly viable force for smaller games. You can also spend $200 and participate in all the Kill Team games, which are now extremely popular -- just look at the thread of what's people like to play, and you'll see that even though KT isn't on the list of poll options, many people list it below as the preference.

In case you aren't familiar, KT games are short small skirmishes that highly restrictive in the units you may take. Rules are on BL, I think $4 or something.

I'm very familiar with KT but you and I will differ here because I firmly believe that 40K does not scale well. Using WM/H as an example again, it is a system that scales very well IMO.

 agnosto wrote:

As to your point that at some point in the future when PP needs money we'll see hugely OP units. Meh, probably not if they continue on their current course. Their model of adding to and changing the game is completely different than GW's. It's also somewhat helpful in that they're not a publicly traded company so are not held to investor expectations on levels of profitability (very much like GW back in the distant past). PP's model of development is more centered on adding to the game and creating campaigns (much like the missed opportunity that GW had with the Eye of Terror Campaign) that do different things to create fervor and generate sales volume versus relying on rushing out unwashed product and hoping it sticks to the walls which seems to be GW's current MO.

 Talys wrote:
You've actually pretty much made my point. In the past, GW was a smaller, less profit hungry private company, and gamers liked the company a lot more (though arguably, the rules weren't any better or worse). At some point, the company went public because the creators wanted to cash out, and things changed, and now a lot of people hate the whole "corporate greed" thing and all that.

At some point, if PP continues to grow and be successful, as the founders age (and die), some of them or their successors will desire the same types of thing -- cashing out. It happens.

Some people happen to like small scrappy companies; personally, I don't really care. I don't want to be their friend, and I don't need to feel like they are mine. My only criteria is that the company make nice models in a good game universe that I have fun playing and modelling.

Not really because it's an unknown variable. No one can know at this point in time whether PP will be publicly traded at some point in the future and we certainly don't know what that will do to corporate culture. There are many publicly traded companies that are fantastic when it comes to customer support and engagement. GW is aces with customer care but we all know how they are with support and engagement; there's nothing to say that PP would change in that regard.

I could care less if GW or PP, or any company, implodes and fades into nonexistance. Heck, until last year, I owned a fair chunk of GW stock and was one of those faceless "investors" that was milking dividends out of the company; the dividends funded two entire 40K armies for me so who am I to complain, but I sold the moment the stock started tanking.


Side note:
You know, maybe being old and grumpy has resulted in my expecting more for my $ than I used to. GW's rules have always kind of sucked but it never really bothered me until I got back into 40K.

 agnosto wrote:
Being a casual player, poorly worded rules are not necessarily as big an issue as they would be to a tournament player

I think it's the opposite, actually. Tournament players at least have tournament FAQs and (theoretically) neutral judges to rule on an issue if there's a disagreement, casual players don't have that support. And casual players are a lot less likely to spend lots of time reading YMDC or studying every relevant rule to figure out how some obscure interaction works. So IMO clear and easy to understand rules are more important for casual players, not less.

It's imoortant to both. I don't get the whole 'if you play casual it doesn't matter' thing, tight, well written, balanced rules would greatly benefit both casual and competitive players.

@agnosto - I don't mean to gloss over your points (many are good), but I'm on my phone, waiting for my lovely wife as she picks up a carload of organic vegetables, so I'm hampered in my ability to respond

Your side note is kind of close to it. For me, GW has never been a particularly balanced game, but I've always had a blast playing 40k and for the hobby as a whole, it wins the #1 spot on my list. When I think of it, many of he games I've really enjoyed aren't particularly balanced -- from Diablo and WarCraft to 40k and MtG (the original release), to name just a few. My conclusion is that game balance only tangentially affects it's popularity, because each of these has seen more than a billion dollars of sales.

I think, for those that sink serious time (and often, money) into a game, what drives us to do so is addictiveness and fun, rather than game balance. Many (not all) of us want to get one more unit, one more card, one more item that will improve our performance just a bit. If only I had Centurions, I could do this; if only I put grav guns here, I could try that.

Game balance aside, I don't think 40k rules are bad at all. Then again, I was happy with AD&D, and I loved that there were complex, arcane tables and rules and all manner of polyhedral dice.

Going to WM/H when it first came out, I tried pretty hard to love it. I ended up kind of liking it, just never to the same addictive degree that any of the 4 titles I mentioned above. Part of it is that I'm a pretty obsessive guy when it comes to my games -- I am willing and want to spend hundreds of hours on something I really love, and WM/H never really gave me that, partly because of lower model counts, and partly because you can't configure models, and partly because there are no cool vehicle kits to assemble (I mean, there is nothing remotely like a Ravager or Stormraven). I like in 40k how I have the expectation that my collection -- and armies -- will never be done, whereas in WM/H I ran out of stuff to build (abd improve, from a model perspective) pretty fast.

On a totally different note, I disagree with you on scalability. If you tried to play WM/H with a hundred plus models per side, it would be a royal mess. And, there are much better rules and models in 40k for fortifications, which are a big part of games I really enjoy.

I completely agree that PP might never take the vector of GW, but I think it is a distinct possibility. Already, the cost of the models and game is significantly higher than when the game first started. Models are going plastic and increasing in price, just like GW. And, eventually people will seek out other fresh games (like Infinity or DUST) and PP may have to decide between making less money and making more from its playerbase.

Anyhow, as I've said before, I'm glad they're around.

 ImAGeek wrote:
It's imoortant to both. I don't get the whole 'if you play casual it doesn't matter' thing, tight, well written, balanced rules would greatly benefit both casual and competitive players.

As much as the WAAC/TFG is the focus of much discussion, there is a CAAC (Casual At All Costs) culture that's potentially just as damaging, but not talked about anything like as much. To these people. it simply is not cool to even act like winning is the least bit important, let alone look for an advantage or be seen to try.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:

Game balance aside, I don't think 40k rules are bad at all.

You what now?

 Azreal13 wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
It's imoortant to both. I don't get the whole 'if you play casual it doesn't matter' thing, tight, well written, balanced rules would greatly benefit both casual and competitive players.

As much as the WAAC/TFG is the focus of much discussion, there is a CAAC (Casual At All Costs) culture that's potentially just as damaging, but not talked about anything like as much. To these people. it simply is not cool to even act like winning is the least bit important, let alone look for an advantage or be seen to try.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:

Game balance aside, I don't think 40k rules are bad at all.

You what now?

Agreed. There's so much stigma here for even trying to optimise a list, it's pretty silly. I mean, it's a competitive game at nature. There's a winner and a loser. So what if someone wants to build a decent list and try to win...

If anything, more balanced rules would be better for casual players. 'WAAC' players don't really care what's most powerful, if we're to believe the stereotypes, they'll take it anyway. But if everything was decently balanced, the fluffy casual players could be as fluffy and casual as they wanted and still have a decent game without being tabled or not having a chance.

 Peregrine wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
Being a casual player, poorly worded rules are not necessarily as big an issue as they would be to a tournament player

I think it's the opposite, actually. Tournament players at least have tournament FAQs and (theoretically) neutral judges to rule on an issue if there's a disagreement, casual players don't have that support. And casual players are a lot less likely to spend lots of time reading YMDC or studying every relevant rule to figure out how some obscure interaction works. So IMO clear and easy to understand rules are more important for casual players, not less.

I think "casual" and "person who doesn't care" are often lumped together. I'd describe myself as casual, I don't play tournaments and I don't play competitive. I'd describe myself as friendly as well. But my God I fething hate ambiguous rules with multiple interpretations or no clearly defined way of playing it.

A big one is whether you need to be 25% covered to gain a cover save due to intervening models, as it MASSIVELY affects my Tyranid army depending on which way it's played. It was worded poorly in 6th and amazingly they changed the wording in 7th and it's still unclear what you're supposed to do.

As someone who considers themselves casual and friendly, I appreciate a solid set of rules because it allows me to use the rules as a springboard to do more interesting things instead of trying to sort out stupid crap the developers didn't word properly and if I have a balanced ruleset to begin with it makes it more fun to do interesting scenarios like games with unequal points or made up scenarios.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Talys wrote:

Game balance aside, I don't think 40k rules are bad at all.

You what now?

Yeah, yeah, I know. I'm in the minority

But as a game system, for the types of battles we play, it works. I really don't think the ambiguity issues are that horrible -- and I see way more rules arguments on the Internet than actually in games that I observe, although I'm sure that's not everyone's experience.

Besides, like I said, I'm a big AD&D fan, back in the days when there was a chart for everything you could imagine, and a zillion Dragon magazine optional rules In fact, that is how I got into 40k -- because White Dwarf used to be (mostly) a D&D supplement magazine

No, that wasn't quite what I meant.

Saying what you said is somewhere in the vicinity of saying "likely instant death aside, being shot in the face is pretty ok!"

You've discounted one of the primary functions of the rules.

 Talys wrote:
But as a game system, for the types of battles we play, it works.

But it could work so much better if the rules didn't suck.

I really don't think the ambiguity issues are that horrible -- and I see way more rules arguments on the Internet than actually in games that I observe, although I'm sure that's not everyone's experience.

Counter-example: virtually every game I've played or watched has had people digging through rulebooks to figure out how something works, and many of those have required calling over a neutral third party to get a ruling because the two players couldn't agree.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

A big one is whether you need to be 25% covered to gain a cover save due to intervening models, as it MASSIVELY affects my Tyranid army depending on which way it's played. It was worded poorly in 6th and amazingly they changed the wording in 7th and it's still unclear what you're supposed to do.

Are you referring to the "partially obscured" rule under Intervening Models? If so, all the groups I've gamed with has understood partially obscured to mean 25%+ of the model's body, because for vehicles, the rules are pretty clear that less than 25% = not obscured, 25%+ but less than 100% = partially obscured (and 100% = no LOS).

When I play, I'm pretty generous about it. If there's a little bit of an arm that "obscures" LOS from an intervening model, I say, no cover save. But if there is any part of the torso in the way, I give the person the benefit of the doubt and call it partial cover (except for tall shooters, elevated firing position, barrage, etc. -- which is covered in the rules).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Talys wrote:
But as a game system, for the types of battles we play, it works.

But it could work so much better if the rules didn't suck.

In our case, I don't think the fun factor or addictiveness would be affected much. For other people, sure. It definitely woudln't hurt!

 Peregrine wrote:

I really don't think the ambiguity issues are that horrible -- and I see way more rules arguments on the Internet than actually in games that I observe, although I'm sure that's not everyone's experience.

Counter-example: virtually every game I've played or watched has had people digging through rulebooks to figure out how something works, and many of those have required calling over a neutral third party to get a ruling because the two players couldn't agree.

If experienced players had to do that all the time, that would be horrible. For relatively inexperienced players, that's just par for the course. I don't see that in peoples' games as often as you, obviously. Usually, at our FLGS, when the players aren't sure about a rule, usually, they hollar out at someone who is more experienced than them (often a store employee -- "Hey, Dave, if..."), who will tell them the rule as they know it, and the players continue on using that rule, even if it's wrong.

If there's someone around that happens to be a very experienced player, usually, the two players will just defer to that person. I think in our local scene, a rulebook is a tool of last resort. Maybe it's all that Ork blood in us.

Now, I can see this being an issue if you're always playing against different people, and they have a different understanding of the rules. There might be one like AllSeeingSkink's example that really matters, but I really don't think most rules are THAT ambiguous. However, if you play against the same people all the time, you kind of figure those things out pretty quick, and you don't rehash them. Plus, as you say, tournaments have house rules, and those tend to spill over into local games.

But yes, your point is well taken: no ambiguity > ambiguity.

That is all well and nice till you have to deal with the actual models that use that rule a lot like WK or nid MCs.

 Azreal13 wrote:
No, that wasn't quite what I meant.

Saying what you said is somewhere in the vicinity of saying "likely instant death aside, being shot in the face is pretty ok!"

You've discounted one of the primary functions of the rules.

Oh, I see what you mean

I actually distinguish rules from unit balance, not because both aren't important, but because the unit balance part of it is more fluid. That is, within 7e, the rules won't change, but the balance of what's good and what's not will change a lot. All it takes is one new release, one new formation, or one dataslate, and the whole balance changes, yet the "rules" have not.

Yeah, I kind of thought you may be meaning something like that.

You're more talking about the meta than balance in that regard though. It is, categorically, the rules accompanying a new or updated unit which make it good or bad. If we lived in some sort of utopia where GW made an effort, we wouldn't so much have "good" and "bad" we'd have "better" and "worse" and those terms would likely be situational (ie in the context of a unit's role or performance against a given target.)

Updates, in this utopia, wouldn't so much turn the meta on it's head, as has happened so often in the past with the introduction of a shiny new, and broken, unit or army, but would see a shift where perhaps units that might have been considered a "worse" option in commonly encountered situations now gained ground on their competing units, but without making them a must take nor rendering their competition redundant.

But we don't get that.

But, I'll agree there is a world of difference between poor rules and poorly written rules, and balance is plagued more by the former, the core game more by the latter. I also agree that, except perhaps redressing the assault/shooting dynamic that there's little inherently unbalanced in the core book (except some psychic powers and disciplines being so out of whack that random generation is the only thing stopping it all getting ridiculous) it is only when the codexes are introduced that everything goes to gak!

 Azreal13 wrote:
Yeah, I kind of thought you may be meaning something like that.

You're more talking about the meta than balance in that regard though. It is, categorically, the rules accompanying a new or updated unit which make it good or bad. If we lived in some sort of utopia where GW made an effort, we wouldn't so much have "good" and "bad" we'd have "better" and "worse" and those terms would likely be situational (ie in the context of a unit's role or performance against a given target.)

Updates, in this utopia, wouldn't so much turn the meta on it's head, as has happened so often in the past with the introduction of a shiny new, and broken, unit or army, but would see a shift where perhaps units that might have been considered a "worse" option in commonly encountered situations now gained ground on their competing units, but without making them a must take nor rendering their competition redundant.

But we don't get that.

But, I'll agree there is a world of difference between poor rules and poorly written rules, and balance is plagued more by the former, the core game more by the latter. I also agree that, except perhaps redressing the assault/shooting dynamic that there's little inherently unbalanced in the core book (except some psychic powers and disciplines being so out of whack that random generation is the only thing stopping it all getting ridiculous) it is only when the codexes are introduced that everything goes to gak!

Yeah, pretty much that. In 40k, there is the unique (I think) situation where units may long outlive core rules. When you can (and are forced to) mix unit rules designed for 5e, 6e and 7e, there's the potential for some mayhem. 7e changed the Psychic phase, for instance, which greatly affected Grey Knights (even before their 7e codex came out). I don't think I that I can think of another game where we have such a wide gap between core rules and army lists.

I've maintained that it would be really nice if GW updated army lists (not the codex, just the lists) every year, and just sold that as 1 book, with updated definitions of every unit and formation. That would allow for a lot of microadjustments that would correct many of the imbalances without having to wait for 5 years to maybe get something fixed.

They can still force people to buy the codexes by not putting *everything* in the list book, like definitions of all the relics, warlord traits, and that kind of thing. And obviously, there would be scant pictures, and essentially no fluff.

40k punishes the fluffy player more due to rules that don't match the fluff and often fluffy armies are terrible on the table, especially against fluff breaking allied armies full of spam.

In other games I can make an army that I feel fits my narrative and is also playble. Win win.

I suspect Formations are an attempt to address the whole fluff/power disparity.

Good idea, poorly executed. Typical of modern GW.

I don't think they do anything for fluff or for balance. It is a simple cash grab. Stuff that should have been in one book gets choped up and divided in to 2-3 books. I mean people are forced to buy the fortress assault book only to be able to use fortification legaly, when the same fortifications had rules in the main rule book an edition ago.

Makumba wrote:
I don't think they do anything for fluff or for balance. It is a simple cash grab. Stuff that should have been in one book gets choped up and divided in to 2-3 books. I mean people are forced to buy the fortress assault book only to be able to use fortification legaly, when the same fortifications had rules in the main rule book an edition ago.

Big time. I don't understand why we have GW apologist defending a company that over priced their products with sub par quality rules.

I used to smoke and I enjoyed cigarets and I don't blame them for my addiction.... But I do think that cigarets company are a dishonest and has an agenda to get people addicted to their products.

GW could be a better company and truly support players and give us what we want....but I don't see that. They might be 20 years ago....something happens in 2000s. I remember their GW forum with Tim Huckelberry answering questions and Fat Block White Dwarf has useful article.....now...I see GW as soulless company out to squeeze every penny and don't care about customer. It is a ready bad company that should be more customer friendly.

Makumba wrote:
I don't think they do anything for fluff or for balance. It is a simple cash grab. Stuff that should have been in one book gets choped up and divided in to 2-3 books. I mean people are forced to buy the fortress assault book only to be able to use fortification legaly, when the same fortifications had rules in the main rule book an edition ago.

Nobody is forced to buy anything, Eeyore, let's dial down the hyperbole and try and at least pretend to be objective, hmmm?

In Soviet Poland, game plays you?

 Psienesis wrote:
Never give to malevolence what can be explained by incompetence.

I'm so quoting that, that was absolutely beauitful.

pLease kill this thread with fire preferably khornate fire

I changed my opinion. There's a lot of different things you can do in 40k now.

I think it's disingenuous to say that your power list was fethed with by GW and the game sucks.

There's so many different options now, nothing really trumps the other. I think the relaxation of so many rules and method of play have some what balanced the game.

david choe wrote:

Makumba wrote:
I don't think they do anything for fluff or for balance. It is a simple cash grab. Stuff that should have been in one book gets choped up and divided in to 2-3 books. I mean people are forced to buy the fortress assault book only to be able to use fortification legaly, when the same fortifications had rules in the main rule book an edition ago.

Big time. I don't understand why we have GW apologist defending a company that over priced their products with sub par quality rules.

I used to smoke and I enjoyed cigarets and I don't blame them for my addiction.... But I do think that cigarets company are a dishonest and has an agenda to get people addicted to their products.

GW could be a better company and truly support players and give us what we want....but I don't see that. They might be 20 years ago....something happens in 2000s. I remember their GW forum with Tim Huckelberry answering questions and Fat Block White Dwarf has useful article.....now...I see GW as soulless company out to squeeze every penny and don't care about customer. It is a ready bad company that should be more customer friendly.

You do realise that saying 'they don't make imbalanced rules on purpose, it's mostly incompetance' is not being a GW apologist or defending the company right?

 Azreal13 wrote:

Makumba wrote:
I don't think they do anything for fluff or for balance. It is a simple cash grab. Stuff that should have been in one book gets choped up and divided in to 2-3 books. I mean people are forced to buy the fortress assault book only to be able to use fortification legaly, when the same fortifications had rules in the main rule book an edition ago.

Nobody is forced to buy anything, Eeyore, let's dial down the hyperbole and try and at least pretend to be objective, hmmm?

What do you mean by is not forced. To use a model you need the rules for it. No shop or tournament will let you play with scan, just like it won't let you play a model without rules , because you know what it does. The only place to get the rules for an aegis is in the fortress assault book. Now you aren't forced to use fortifications, well at least if your not playing some of the armies, others like IG or Tau have the more or less build in to their army.

Makumba wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

Makumba wrote:
I don't think they do anything for fluff or for balance. It is a simple cash grab. Stuff that should have been in one book gets choped up and divided in to 2-3 books. I mean people are forced to buy the fortress assault book only to be able to use fortification legaly, when the same fortifications had rules in the main rule book an edition ago.

Nobody is forced to buy anything, Eeyore, let's dial down the hyperbole and try and at least pretend to be objective, hmmm?

What do you mean by is not forced. To use a model you need the rules for it. No shop or tournament will let you play with scan, just like it won't let you play a model without rules , because you know what it does. The only place to get the rules for an aegis is in the fortress assault book. Now you aren't forced to use fortifications, well at least if your not playing some of the armies, others like IG or Tau have the more or less build in to their army.

Exactly, you aren't forced to use fortifications, so you aren't forced to buy the book. It was hyperbole.

 Talys wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

A big one is whether you need to be 25% covered to gain a cover save due to intervening models, as it MASSIVELY affects my Tyranid army depending on which way it's played. It was worded poorly in 6th and amazingly they changed the wording in 7th and it's still unclear what you're supposed to do.

Are you referring to the "partially obscured" rule under Intervening Models? If so, all the groups I've gamed with has understood partially obscured to mean 25%+ of the model's body, because for vehicles, the rules are pretty clear that less than 25% = not obscured, 25%+ but less than 100% = partially obscured (and 100% = no LOS).

When I play, I'm pretty generous about it. If there's a little bit of an arm that "obscures" LOS from an intervening model, I say, no cover save. But if there is any part of the torso in the way, I give the person the benefit of the doubt and call it partial cover (except for tall shooters, elevated firing position, barrage, etc. -- which is covered in the rules).

There's 2 terms that are used that aren't defined, one is "partially obscured" the other is "through the gaps". The vehicle rules only talk about 25% = obscured, so does "partially obscured" mean even less than 25%, or does it equal 25%? And what does "through the gaps" mean?

I know people who play it both ways and to me it's a leap to do it either way because the key terms and not defined and there's logical reasons for both and it makes a pretty big difference to the viability of a Tyranid army made up of a wave of small things backed by a wave of monsters. Without the cover save, that army is not really viable, with the cover saves, it's a decent army.

I know it's one of the more extreme examples, but it simply demonstrates my point that just because you're a "casual" player doesn't mean "you aren't allowed to care". I have little to no interest in competitive play but it still annoys the hell out of me, that's one of the bigger examples but there's tons of smaller ones thrown in with all the terrible balance issues really reduces the fun of the game even though I consider myself a casual/friendly player.

When you have a good tight set of rules it allows the casual player to open up the game to more interesting out of the box things instead of just grappling with sorting out the excessively convoluted and poorly worded core rules.

 Blacksails wrote:
In Soviet Poland, game plays you?

It's funny how I agree about most things you and your little club say about the game etc but your online personas just makes me consider the opposite. You're condescending, passive agressive or just plain rude depending on post, it's not ofc only about this particular quote but many others.

Not that I'm better, though at least I know for sure that I do it as a lightweight trolling. You just seem to be full of it.

Do you not have jokes in Poland?