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.

Gents,

Rule Number One of this site is Be Polite. Let's keep it on an even keel please.

Thanks!

All in all, it is the LEAST "broken" edition to have ever been published. You see a lot of people complaining butif you look and see who the ones complaining are, you will notice that they are the ones who relied on broken aspects of earlier editions. Their previous ways of winning are still perfectly viable and valid, they just aren't the 100% guaranteed wins they were before and they now have to actually play and think.
That doesnt mean that there isnt a broken aspect to this game.
1. psychics, an opponent SHOULD be able to deny the witch to ALL psychics and not just those that are directly offensive.
2. Allies allow a lot of unintended broken combos. Battle brothers being removed would fix most of this.

6th isn't Broken just some elements suck

1) random charge range ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU ARE WITH IN 6" !!!!! ( my honour guard were 6" away from the enemy I declared a charge got shot the Don't bypass the language filter like this. Reds8n out off via marker light over watch then rolled snake eyes and got obliterated next turn naturally. The laughs still ring in my ears)

2) vehicles need armour saves its too easy to kill tanks these days especially dreads

3) challenges- being unable to fight if you decline straight sucks

4) flyers- if you have no AA they are damn near impossible to kill

5) allies that make sense I mean seriously space marines and any xenos should pretty much be a straight no unless in dire need

That's all I can Think of for now lol

Hey guys, thank you all. Even Watson, as I tend to agree with you and you kept your rage short. But my greatest thanks go to Redbeard, he best pointed out exactly what he finds wrong, assault. Also those of you that mentioned the allies system, which I find interesting but I don't believed should be a part of the game. I think it's a great fluffy recommendation, but does not belong in core mechanics.

Thanks again everyone, I'm off to start a much more inflammatory thread about why I think assault is fine the way it is. Redbeard, I'll see you there.

Martel732 wrote:
"No they aren't broken. "

You sir, are insane or incapable of the maths. Wave Serpents are beyond strong. They are every bit as broken as the things you listed in your post.

And I don't have to "get over it". I have lots of alternative things I could do with my time. Which is increasingly becoming the case. Games made by devs that at least half-way give a crap.

They really aren't broken. Powered-up Seer Council is broken. Rerollable 2++s on daemons are broken.

Wave serpents are just overpowered.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
imo, it is not really broken. It is a very solid game system. The only real problems are that some of the rules are written in a very ambiguous way and the balance in some codices is horrible.

If anyone screams that it is broken, they are clearly overreacting.

Yet it happens all the time, almost like clockwork when anything GW puts out is released.

These types of threads, along with anything related to something new from GW, always rapidly deteriorate as jaded disgruntled wargamers voice their resounding judgement upon the content they have been given.

Repeat forever until the sun implodes upon itself, or they realize their cries will continue to go unheard.

Meanwhile, the rest of us continue to enjoy the hobby and embrace it for what it is/we get out of it, and what we make of it (like any hobby).

Internet view means nothing to me: I find it broken because of casualties from the front (characters make sense, special weapons do not), no assaults from a stationary vehicle, random charges. I have no issue with hull points. I LIKE the concept of hull points. That isn't even on the list of my complaints. Challenges are also fine.

I agree, they seem to deteriorate quickly. Mods feel free to close this thread when that happens, as it was not my intent. Lets keep it alive guys, and feel free to pop over to my assault phase thread and tell me how wrong I am.

 EVIL INC wrote:
All in all, it is the LEAST "broken" edition to have ever been published. You see a lot of people complaining butif you look and see who the ones complaining are, you will notice that they are the ones who relied on broken aspects of earlier editions. Their previous ways of winning are still perfectly viable and valid, they just aren't the 100% guaranteed wins they were before and they now have to actually play and think.
That doesnt mean that there isnt a broken aspect to this game.
1. psychics, an opponent SHOULD be able to deny the witch to ALL psychics and not just those that are directly offensive.
2. Allies allow a lot of unintended broken combos. Battle brothers being removed would fix most of this.

This +1.
Last edition was THE Imperial edition and Xenos got to suck it, to the point that most were barely even playable. Now it's the other way around with long languishing Xenos players finally getting an update after 8-10+ years of watching Marines get all the toys.
I honestly get a good laugh out of the GK players especially, whining that Daemons are too good now and need to be nerfed so they can compete against them...

What would fix the 2 glaring issues with the game right now:
1. Psychic Phase needs to come back, not the half-arsed turd we've got right now where Blessings are the end-all-be-all since only SW's can actively stop them. Screamer & JetSeerstars are only problematic for example because there's 0 effective way to stop them from casting spells like Forewarning or Fortune.
Go all-in with the system like it is in Fantasy with Casting vs. Dispel dice and you make psychic abilities a helluva lot more tactical instead of the no-brainer system of "spam Divination/Runes of Battle/Fate as much as possible"

2. Disallow 'Battle Brothers' allies from joining eachother's units & benefiting from eachother's psychic potential. (the latter is needed until Blessings are counterable by all!)



And while every single Codex has it's under-costed gems, they are only a problem when a player maxes out on just those specific unit(s) in order to simply groin-punch their opponent.
This edition has Riptides, Wave Serpents, Hellturkeys & Nightscythes as being counted amongst the more obnoxious units to field 4-6+ of.
Last edition it was Grey Hunters + Misslefangs, Henchmen spam, min/maxed Purifyers in Las/plasbacks, min/maxed BA Assault Squad in cheaper Razorbacks, etc...

You can tell a lot about a player simply by their list and their attitude when they're setting up. If they put a min/maxed, hyper-optimised list on the table and then smugly grin at you when you're playing a 'nothing-on-the-line' friendly game, they're an obvious donkey-cave.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Internet view means nothing to me: I find it broken because of casualties from the front (characters make sense, special weapons do not), no assaults from a stationary vehicle, random charges. I have no issue with hull points. I LIKE the concept of hull points. That isn't even on the list of my complaints. Challenges are also fine.

I agree with the Character comment- this would solve a lot of the 'tanking' shenanigans that occur, while simultaneously allowing you to actually place your special weapons in useful places without fear of them dying (a good example is meltaguns).

Assaults out of stationary should be allowed, along with streamlined assault distances. Also, assaulting from Reserve needs to be a thing once again.

Hull Points, I feel, were a necessary evil. Even if all vehicles had +1 it would probably solve a lot of the issues people have with perceived vehicle vulnerability.

Challenges I have to disagree with. Not only is this often a complete joke from a fluff perspective depending on the confrontation, it's very easy to abuse, and obsoletes a lot of wargear options for characters.

Really, though, my biggest gripe with 40k (which has never been fixed) is the archaic turn system. The game is not dynamic or strategic enough when a player can choose to do everything with their entire army, and then let the opponent do the same (after the smoke clears/with what remains). Alternating turns, or unit by unit activation, really does improve the experience.

"1. Improvise, adapt and overcome. "

Easy to say that with the might of the US DoD behind you.

Not so easy with Eldar generating 50+ wounds a turn against meqs.

"2. Here's a straw. Now how bout you go suck it up."

Because I don't have to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"No they aren't broken. "

You sir, are insane or incapable of the maths. Wave Serpents are beyond strong. They are every bit as broken as the things you listed in your post.

And I don't have to "get over it". I have lots of alternative things I could do with my time. Which is increasingly becoming the case. Games made by devs that at least half-way give a crap.

They really aren't broken. Powered-up Seer Council is broken. Rerollable 2++s on daemons are broken.

Wave serpents are just overpowered.

The line between OP and broken is fuzzy. When does OP reach "broken" then? I think a dedicated transport that has the firepower of a battle tank and even more durability is broken.

@Experiment 626.
So a NEW player with NO idea about how effective units are in game , happens to pick lots of the same unit because they look COOL to him/her.
Then spend AGES assembling and painting them up the VERY best they can.
They have spent A LOT of time effort and money , building their army.

They head down to the local game store .
And because they have maxed out on a UNDER COSTED UNIT , BY ACCIDENT!
No ONE will play them !

OR they have maxed out on an OVER COSTED UNIT By ACCIDENT !
And they get kerb stomped every game!

So because GW can not be bothered to play test 40k rules/codex books, the unfortunate new players either have the option to spend MORE time and money, in the hope of eventually getting it 'right'.
OR QUIT the hobby entirely,due to not getting anything like a fun experience after spending so much time and money on 40k.

So in the short term GW get lots of cash, but loose customers long term.
Because 40k rule and codex books actually ARE broken.(Not fit for the perpouse they were sold for.)

Experiment 6222901 null wrote:6 572528 64]
This +1.
Last edition was THE Imperial edition and Xenos got to suck it, to the point that most were barely even playable. Now it's the other way around with long languishing Xenos players finally getting an update after 8-10+ years of watching Marines get all the toys.
I honestly get a good laugh out of the GK players especially, whining that Daemons are too good now and need to be nerfed so they can compete against them...

To be fair, 4E was largely dominated by Xenos, particularly Eldar, while Necrons and especially Tau were quite strong there too, it was really only the 4 years of 5E that was Imperial dominated.

Martel732 wrote:
"1. Improvise, adapt and overcome. "

Easy to say that with the might of the US DoD behind you.

Not so easy with Eldar generating 50+ wounds a turn against meqs.

"2. Here's a straw. Now how bout you go suck it up."

Because I don't have to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"No they aren't broken. "

You sir, are insane or incapable of the maths. Wave Serpents are beyond strong. They are every bit as broken as the things you listed in your post.

And I don't have to "get over it". I have lots of alternative things I could do with my time. Which is increasingly becoming the case. Games made by devs that at least half-way give a crap.

They really aren't broken. Powered-up Seer Council is broken. Rerollable 2++s on daemons are broken.

Wave serpents are just overpowered.

The line between OP and broken is fuzzy. When does OP reach "broken" then? I think a dedicated transport that has the firepower of a battle tank and even more durability is broken.

Wave Serpents did not need the introduction of Titan Killers to be "fixed"

Besides, they are still susceptible to gauss and haywire, and their absurd attack removes their shield.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Experiment 6222901 null wrote:6 572528 64]
This +1.
Last edition was THE Imperial edition and Xenos got to suck it, to the point that most were barely even playable. Now it's the other way around with long languishing Xenos players finally getting an update after 8-10+ years of watching Marines get all the toys.
I honestly get a good laugh out of the GK players especially, whining that Daemons are too good now and need to be nerfed so they can compete against them...

To be fair, 4E was largely dominated by Xenos, particularly Eldar, while Necrons and especially Tau were quite strong there too, it was really only the 4 years of 5E that was Imperial dominated.

Xenos are still paying off karma from 2nd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"1. Improvise, adapt and overcome. "

Easy to say that with the might of the US DoD behind you.

Not so easy with Eldar generating 50+ wounds a turn against meqs.

"2. Here's a straw. Now how bout you go suck it up."

Because I don't have to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"No they aren't broken. "

You sir, are insane or incapable of the maths. Wave Serpents are beyond strong. They are every bit as broken as the things you listed in your post.

And I don't have to "get over it". I have lots of alternative things I could do with my time. Which is increasingly becoming the case. Games made by devs that at least half-way give a crap.

They really aren't broken. Powered-up Seer Council is broken. Rerollable 2++s on daemons are broken.

Wave serpents are just overpowered.

The line between OP and broken is fuzzy. When does OP reach "broken" then? I think a dedicated transport that has the firepower of a battle tank and even more durability is broken.

Wave Serpents did not need the introduction of Titan Killers to be "fixed"

Besides, they are still susceptible to gauss and haywire, and their absurd attack removes their shield.

Since hull pointing out AV 12 is usually the way to go, the holofield and fast skimmer rules are what make them durable, the shield is there for marine alpha strikes and to be used a crazy weapon.

Lanrak wrote:
@Experiment 626.
So a NEW player with NO idea about how effective units are in game , happens to pick lots of the same unit because they look COOL to him/her.
Then spend AGES assembling and painting them up the VERY best they can.
They have spent A LOT of time effort and money , building their army.

They head down to the local game store .
And because they have maxed out on a UNDER COSTED UNIT , BY ACCIDENT!
No ONE will play them !

OR they have maxed out on an OVER COSTED UNIT By ACCIDENT !
And they get kerb stomped every game!

So because GW can not be bothered to play test 40k rules/codex books, the unfortunate new players either have the option to spend MORE time and money, in the hope of eventually getting it 'right'.
OR QUIT the hobby entirely,due to not getting anything like a fun experience after spending so much time and money on 40k.

So in the short term GW get lots of cash, but loose customers long term.
Because 40k rule and codex books actually ARE broken.(Not fit for the perpouse they were sold for.)

I disagree. The purpose of the books is to play the game, which largely works (rarely will a rules situation crop up for the average game- when most people say the rulebook is completely busted they are exaggerating).

What GW doesn't do well is balance. This I will not argue with. Despite the balance issues, though, playing the game as intended (throwing a bunch of interesting/your favorite models on the board to blow eachother up) works flawlessly.

GW has a lot of ambiguous rules interactions. That is at least a partial fail.

Meh, people whined about all the editions being "broken", and to an extent they were. Sixth isn't really any more broken than normal from my judgement of the activeness of whining about it.

I dont mind casualties from the front. It actually makes sense and adds a touch of realism. It also adds in an extra dimension of tactics as you now have to plan more carefully where you place your models. I does kinda screw over flamers though, A slight point reduction for them would fix that though.

XenosTerminus wrote:
I disagree. The purpose of the books is to play the game, which largely works (rarely will a rules situation crop up for the average game- when most people say the rulebook is completely busted they are exaggerating).

Really? Draw line of sight with a helmeted model - or one without eyes. The rulebook doesn't cover that. It's been an issue for a long time and would simply take a part of a sentence to fix ", or where their eyes would be"

That's simply one of the issues with the rules.

 EVIL INC wrote:
I dont mind casualties from the front. It actually makes sense and adds a touch of realism. It also adds in an extra dimension of tactics as you now have to plan more carefully where you place your models. I does kinda screw over flamers though, A slight point reduction for them would fix that though.

While more realistic, it's also a hit to assault (especially coupled with random charge lengths, and overwatch).

I think the 5th edition variation, where you could remove from anywhere in LOS, worked fine (and was subjective). Since the models firing at you aren't precision shooting, it can be argued the casualty removal simulates troops dying, but more moving up to restore ranks (as well as pick up weapons). What works about that (other than the multi-wound stuff that was a mess) is it doesn't harm assault or unique wargear positioning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
I disagree. The purpose of the books is to play the game, which largely works (rarely will a rules situation crop up for the average game- when most people say the rulebook is completely busted they are exaggerating).

Really? Draw line of sight with a helmeted model - or one without eyes. The rulebook doesn't cover that. It's been an issue for a long time and would simply take a part of a sentence to fix ", or where their eyes would be"

That's simply one of the issues with the rules.

Horrible example. This requires the use of common sense, and not being a complete tool because a simple sentence doesn't spell out every single possible scenario.

'That unit doesn't have eyes so it can't measure TLOS!'

I would immediately pack up my miniatures and completely forget I ever interacted with someone who tries that.

rigeld2 wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
I disagree. The purpose of the books is to play the game, which largely works (rarely will a rules situation crop up for the average game- when most people say the rulebook is completely busted they are exaggerating).

Really? Draw line of sight with a helmeted model - or one without eyes. The rulebook doesn't cover that. It's been an issue for a long time and would simply take a part of a sentence to fix ", or where their eyes would be"

That's simply one of the issues with the rules.

No sane person would make that argument in real life. I would seriously be worried if someone argued this in a game. I know what you are saying but common sense is an easy fix to the rules holes.

 Swastakowey wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
I disagree. The purpose of the books is to play the game, which largely works (rarely will a rules situation crop up for the average game- when most people say the rulebook is completely busted they are exaggerating).

Really? Draw line of sight with a helmeted model - or one without eyes. The rulebook doesn't cover that. It's been an issue for a long time and would simply take a part of a sentence to fix ", or where their eyes would be"

That's simply one of the issues with the rules.

No sane person would make that argument in real life. I would seriously be worried if someone argued this in a game. I know what you are saying but common sense is an easy fix to the rules holes.

The rules are fine and rarely is there a situation where they don't work in an average game.
Except when they aren't fine and there's a situation that crops up literally every game that you have to "common sense" around.

And your common sense, my common sense, and GWs common sense are not likely to all be on the same page... ever.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
I disagree. The purpose of the books is to play the game, which largely works (rarely will a rules situation crop up for the average game- when most people say the rulebook is completely busted they are exaggerating).

Really? Draw line of sight with a helmeted model - or one without eyes. The rulebook doesn't cover that. It's been an issue for a long time and would simply take a part of a sentence to fix ", or where their eyes would be"

That's simply one of the issues with the rules.

No sane person would make that argument in real life. I would seriously be worried if someone argued this in a game. I know what you are saying but common sense is an easy fix to the rules holes.

The rules are fine and rarely is there a situation where they don't work in an average game.
Except when they aren't fine and there's a situation that crops up literally every game that you have to "common sense" around.

And your common sense, my common sense, and GWs common sense are not likely to all be on the same page... ever.

Thats where attitude comes in. If you see 2 guys playing for fun and not solely to win, when something comes up in the rules it takes like 5 seconds for them to just come up with something and move on. They dont loose their smile. its so easy and once you have "fixed" it you move on and the problem wont come up again because its been dealt with.

And nobodies common sense is "that model has no eyes, it cant shoot". I highly doubt it has ever been a problem in real life gaming.

 Swastakowey wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
I disagree. The purpose of the books is to play the game, which largely works (rarely will a rules situation crop up for the average game- when most people say the rulebook is completely busted they are exaggerating).

Really? Draw line of sight with a helmeted model - or one without eyes. The rulebook doesn't cover that. It's been an issue for a long time and would simply take a part of a sentence to fix ", or where their eyes would be"

That's simply one of the issues with the rules.

No sane person would make that argument in real life. I would seriously be worried if someone argued this in a game. I know what you are saying but common sense is an easy fix to the rules holes.

The rules are fine and rarely is there a situation where they don't work in an average game.
Except when they aren't fine and there's a situation that crops up literally every game that you have to "common sense" around.

And your common sense, my common sense, and GWs common sense are not likely to all be on the same page... ever.

Thats where attitude comes in. If you see 2 guys playing for fun and not solely to win, when something comes up in the rules it takes like 5 seconds for them to just come up with something and move on. They dont loose their smile. its so easy and once you have "fixed" it you move on and the problem wont come up again because its been dealt with.

And nobodies common sense is "that model has no eyes, it cant shoot". I highly doubt it has ever been a problem in real life gaming.

And none of that shows a rule set that "largely works" where "rarely will a rules situation crop up for the average game".
Do you want more examples?

 Swastakowey wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
I disagree. The purpose of the books is to play the game, which largely works (rarely will a rules situation crop up for the average game- when most people say the rulebook is completely busted they are exaggerating).

Really? Draw line of sight with a helmeted model - or one without eyes. The rulebook doesn't cover that. It's been an issue for a long time and would simply take a part of a sentence to fix ", or where their eyes would be"

That's simply one of the issues with the rules.

No sane person would make that argument in real life. I would seriously be worried if someone argued this in a game. I know what you are saying but common sense is an easy fix to the rules holes.

The rules are fine and rarely is there a situation where they don't work in an average game.
Except when they aren't fine and there's a situation that crops up literally every game that you have to "common sense" around.

And your common sense, my common sense, and GWs common sense are not likely to all be on the same page... ever.

Thats where attitude comes in. If you see 2 guys playing for fun and not solely to win, when something comes up in the rules it takes like 5 seconds for them to just come up with something and move on. They dont loose their smile. its so easy and once you have "fixed" it you move on and the problem wont come up again because its been dealt with.

And nobodies common sense is "that model has no eyes, it cant shoot". I highly doubt it has ever been a problem in real life gaming.

Agreed. This is more of an issue with individual player mindsets and attitudes more so than the ruleset.

Nobody is arguing GW couldn't use more proofreading/clearer rules. It's largely a non-issue for the average game, and as stated, easily remedied by using common sense, reading comprehension, or a gentleman's agreement.

You will literally never be happy with this game if you nitpick every fault it has. Fortunately these issues are easy to work around if you play with sensible adults that don't throw tantrums over ultimately what boils down to something that is meaningless and meant for fun.

Move on to a different game if this does not suit your tastes.

XenosTerminus wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:

Spoiler:

I disagree. The purpose of the books is to play the game, which largely works (rarely will a rules situation crop up for the average game- when most people say the rulebook is completely busted they are exaggerating).

Really? Draw line of sight with a helmeted model - or one without eyes. The rulebook doesn't cover that. It's been an issue for a long time and would simply take a part of a sentence to fix ", or where their eyes would be"

That's simply one of the issues with the rules.

No sane person would make that argument in real life. I would seriously be worried if someone argued this in a game. I know what you are saying but common sense is an easy fix to the rules holes.

The rules are fine and rarely is there a situation where they don't work in an average game.
Except when they aren't fine and there's a situation that crops up literally every game that you have to "common sense" around.

And your common sense, my common sense, and GWs common sense are not likely to all be on the same page... ever.

Thats where attitude comes in. If you see 2 guys playing for fun and not solely to win, when something comes up in the rules it takes like 5 seconds for them to just come up with something and move on. They dont loose their smile. its so easy and once you have "fixed" it you move on and the problem wont come up again because its been dealt with.

And nobodies common sense is "that model has no eyes, it cant shoot". I highly doubt it has ever been a problem in real life gaming.

Agreed. This is more of an issue with individual player mindsets and attitudes more so than the ruleset.

Nobody is arguing GW couldn't use more proofreading/clearer rules. It's largely a non-issue for the average game, and as stated, easily remedied by using common sense, reading comprehension, or a gentleman's agreement.

You will literally never be happy with this game if you nitpick every fault it has. Fortunately these issues are easy to work around if you play with sensible adults that don't throw tantrums over ultimately what boils down to something that is meaningless and meant for fun.

Move on to a different game if this does not suit your tastes.

It's not about nitpicking every fault. I don't expect perfection (I am still an avid BattleTech playet).

It's about ignoring (literally) the fact that the same issues have cropped up edition after edition and rather than fixing it they just copy/paste the same damn rules.

They're selling a game. Playtest the damn game. That's all I expect. I guarantee they're not playtesting (or at least - not playtesting well).

rigeld2 wrote:
It's not about nitpicking every fault. I don't expect perfection (I am still an avid BattleTech playet).

It's about ignoring (literally) the fact that the same issues have cropped up edition after edition and rather than fixing it they just copy/paste the same damn rules.

They're selling a game. Playtest the damn game. That's all I expect. I guarantee they're not playtesting (or at least - not playtesting well).

They playtest.

The problem with their method is that they internally playtest, likely with the same people each round. The same issues crop up every edition (more or less) because to GW a lot of these things really aren't issues.

You could argue that it is lazy, or they use the 'roll off' or 'forge the narrative' clauses as a scapegoat for their shortcomings, but that is irrelevant.

The point here is that you, as a player, have been given a basic/core ruleset. Some responsibility has to be placed on the players to ensure that, despite the games faults, the experience remains enjoyable. Your outlook and attitude towards extremely minor rules issues is anything but enjoyable.

XenosTerminus wrote:
The point here is that you, as a player, have been given a basic/core ruleset. Some responsibility has to be placed on the players to ensure that, despite the games faults, the experience remains enjoyable. Your outlook and attitude towards extremely minor rules issues is anything but enjoyable.

Extremely minor? Basic line of sight issues are extremely minor?

And it's awesome how you assume you know how I play at the table. I have fun. I rarely engage in rules arguments - because it's about fun. Even in tournaments, I go to play new people.
Take your assumptions elsewhere please.